Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Arbroath Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Prisons (Scotland),

Paper [presented 7th November] to be printed. [No. 197.]

CROWN FORESHORES.

Copy ordered "of Statement of the particulars of all cases in which the rights and interests of the Crown in the shores and bed of the sea and tidal rivers have been sold, leased, or otherwise dealt with by the Board of Trade under the Crown Lands Act, 1866, from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1916 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 338, of Session 1912)." — [Sir Auckland Geddes.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would publish a statement giving a complete list of all existing import restrictions?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): A complete list of existing import restrictions was given in the statement issued by the Board of Trade for publication in the Press on the 23rd August, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend. The list has not been altered in any way since that date.

Sir S. HOARE: Would it not be a good thing to publish this list as a White Paper, in view of the fact that the Press does not always publish the list which his Department sends out, and that, in consequence, the list has a very limited circulation?

Sir A. GEDDES: The list has been published in the "Board of Trade Journal." If it were considered desirable, I should be happy to arrange for publication. The
substance of it will be embodied in the Schedule of a Bill which I hope to be able to introduce at an early date.

Mr. LAMBERT: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department could state whether British exports, including services rendered and interest receivable, were balancing British imports; and, if not, what was the difference between exports and imports for the present year?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is a matter of extreme difficulty to get figures which can be relied on implicitly. According to the best estimates available, however, British exports, including services rendered and interest receivable, are not balancing this year's British imports. It is important to remember that the amount of our imports is at present increased by the re-establishment of stocks of industrial raw materials which were depleted during the War. I hope to toe able to make a further statement on this subject at an early date.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In making that calculation is the right hon. Gentleman including freights earned by British shipping?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is implied in the answer to the question.

CONTROL COUNCILS (WOOL AND LEATHER).

Sir S. HOARE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Wool and Leather Control Councils were still in existence; and whether there were still in existence any other control councils of a similar character?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that the Wool and Leather Councils, though still in existence, now act only in an advisory capacity to the Ministry of Munitions. The only other operating control council, of which I am aware, is the Flax Control Board.

Lieut. - Commander KEN WORTHY: Hay I inquire whether any consumers, other than representatives of the wool and leather trades, are on these councils?

Sir A. GEDDES: Any question with regard to these councils should be directed to the Ministry of Munitions, in connection with which they work.

DYE MANUFACTURES (SUBSIDY).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the subsidised dye manufacturers were supplying to woollen manufacturers dyes which were not fast to milling, and that in consequence quantities of good material were being spoiled weekly; and whether he would take steps to enable woollen manufacturers to obtain dyes that could be guaranteed?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have received a complaint to the effect described from one firm, but I have at present no reason to suppose that it is representative. If dye-users cannot obtain dyestuffs of suitable kind or quality from domestic sources it is open to them to apply for licence to import.

Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman has received one complaint. Can he say whether he has investigated it?

Sir A. GEDDES: In all these cases investigation is at once undertaken. I am not in a position to say whether the complaint is accurate or not. There is always inquiry made.

COTTON TRADE SYNDICATES.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware of the concern operating amongst all classes in Lancashire owing to the activities of syndicates who were purchasing cotton factories at inflated values; whether he was aware that the effect of such activities would tend towards maintaining the present high prices for cotton goods, and also react against the cotton operative from participating in the benefits accruing from the prospective boom in the cotton trade; and what action, if any, was being taken to prevent any further operations of these syndicates?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that a number of spinning mills in Lancashire have recently been acquired by syndicates at what appear to be very high prices, and in so far as these prices are speculative it is obvious that such transactions may have very undesirable consequences; but as at present advised I do not think that His Majesty's Government has any power to interfere.

GERMANY (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).

Mr. A. SHORT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of our export and import trade with Germany since the Armistice and the nature of such exports and imports?

Sir A. GEDDES: A statement is being prepared giving the information asked for and I will have it circulated as soon as possible with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

OIL BORINGS (DERBYSHIRE).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could report any further progress in the borings for oil in Derbyshire; if the boring which struck oil near Chesterfield was continuing to flow; if so, whether the oil was being stored; and if any further tests had been made of the quality of the oil?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. Progress in the Derbyshire boring operations has recently been somewhat delayed by unavoidable accidents and difficulties in getting material. The boring at Hardstoft is still flowing at the rate of about 260 gallons a day, and the oil is being put into storage on the spot. There are about 36,500 gallons in stock. No further tests as to the quality of the oil have been made, but there is no reason to suppose that there has recently been any appreciable change in its character.

Sir A. FELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any further information with regard to any of the other borings?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will send my hon. Friend a statement.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the prospects of gaining oil are as good as they were supposed to be some months ago?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I should like to reflect on that before giving an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

COAL-OWNERS' PROFITS.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether he had seen the statement made by Mr. Finlay Gibson, secretary of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Coal-owners' Association, to the effect that the coal-owners' profits were not limited to 1s. 2d. per ton; and, if so, would he at once take steps to give effect to the statements made both by himself and the Leader of the House on this point, and thus clear up this misunderstanding?

Mr. HARTSHORN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could state when a Bill would be introduced limiting coal-owners' profits to 1s. 2d. per ton?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will answer this question together with No. 55, to which the Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I would refer the hon. Members to my reuly to questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle East, on 6th November, as well as to the reply given by the Leader of the House on 29th October, to a question by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division.

ANTHRACITE.

Colonel BURN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consider the removal or relaxation on the purchase of anthracite coal, in view of the fact that those householders who by advice purchased stoves to burn that coal during the coming winter now found themselves unable, owing to the restrictions imposed, to obtain it?

Sir A. GEDDES: Restrictions on the quantity of anthracite allowed to consumers wore removed in June last, and the Controller of Coal Mines is now prepared to allow anthracite to be purchased from any merchant, whether the consumer be registered with that merchant or not. As I have previously informed the House, the difficulty with regard to supplies of anthracite is mainly due to lack of transport facilities. The attention of the Ministry of Transport has been directed to the position, and they have the matter in hand.

Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLL: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what, if any, efforts are being made to continue the supply of anthracite coal to the Cornish clay district; is he aware that mines are being flooded through the want of anthracite coal; and when may the workers in this district expect the supplies promised to avoid a total stoppage of the industry,
the majority of the pumping plant in the district being fitted only for the burning of anthracite coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: The only application that has been received for assistance in obtaining anthracite for this purpose is one which was made by the Hensbarrow United China Clays, Limited, St. Austell, on the 23rd October. Arrangements were made to send forward a consignment immediately. As I have already stated in the House, the difficulty is one of transport, and is receiving the attention of the Ministry of Transport.

MINERS (PIECE RATES).

Mr. HARTSHORN: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the revision of piece rates consequent on the Miners' Seven Hours Act has been settled in each coalfield; what advance has been agreed to for each coalfield; and the number of piece-workers affected by each settlement and the number of pieceworkers whose length of working day and piece rates are unaffected by the Seven Hours Act?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am obtaining the information asked for, and shall be glad to send it to the hon. Member.

WEEKLY OUTPUT.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the output from the coal mines in Great Britain for the week ending 1st November, 1919?

Sir A. GEDDES: The figures of output of coal for the week ending 1st November will not be available until to-morrow; when I will see that they are sent immediately to the hon. Member and circulated to the House in the usual way.

CURRENCY INFLATION (NECES SARIES OF LIFE).

Mr. LAMBERT: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how far the present excessive cost of necessaries of life was caused by a shortage of supply or by an inflation of the currency; and whether a statement showing the supply of wheat, meat, wool, cotton, hides, and timber in pre-war years and the present year could be given?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is impossible to state at all precisely the extent to which
the present cost of necessaries is due to conditions of supply on the one hand and currency causes on the other hand. With, reference to the second part of the question, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT information with reference to those of the commodities named for which it is practicable to furnish figures of world production. Even for these, information regarding the production of the current, year is not yet to hand for a considerable part of the world.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon Gentleman considered the effect upon the inflation of prices of the non-funding of the floating debt and the unlimited credit thereby created?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, I have considered that among many other influences.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not that the chief cause?

Sir A. GEDDES: I could not agree.

Lord R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable to have a real expert inquiry into the point raised in the first part of this question, and to lay before the House some real definite statement as to what is the Government's view as to the inflation of the currency, and a statement as to what course it is proposed to take?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not quite sure in my own mind what my Noble Friend refers to when he speaks of "expert inquiry." In so far as inquiry can be made by experts of the Board of Trade, that is now proceeding.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a question to be considered apart from the interest of the bankers concerned—as to whether this creation of public credit should be indefinitely extended?

Sir A. GEDDES: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, on the subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the findings of the expert committee of the Board of Trade will be made public?

Sir A. GEDDES: If the hon. and gallant Member said a "committee" he was wrong. It is the experts of the Board of Trade working as experts in the Board of Trade. In the usual way, any information
which is really worth publishing, and sufficiently reliable to be published, will be published.

PROFITEERING.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the fact that, since the passing of the Profiteering Act, the prices of certain articles of Food had been advanced; that whereas in most cases retailers had not advanced, or only slightly advaned, their prices, manufacturers and wholesalers had been found to have advanced theirs by 100 to 150 per cent.; why the latter had not been proceeded against; whether he would give the number of complaints made to the local tribunals, the number of persons summoned, and the number of offenders fined or imprisoned; and whether the experience already gained showed conclusively that the Act required to be greatly strengthened if the public were to get that relief which was promised when the measure was introduced to the House?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that this rise in prices is mainly due to seasonal increases in the cost of certain articles of food, and as the principal articles of food are controlled, these do not come under the Profiteering Act. I am unable to admit the accuracy of the second part of the question; the question of profiteering by wholesalers is dealt with by the Central Committee and in proper cases proceedings will be taken against wholesalers in the same manner as against retailers. At present only a small percentage of returns have been received from local committees showing that 466 complaints have been heard and determined, prosecution having been ordered in seventeen cases, and in one case a fine has been imposed. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 27th October last, the question of extending the Profiteering Act is now under consideration.

GAS CHARGES.

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what procedure his Department adopts before they allow London gas companies to increase their
charges to consumers under the Statutory Undertakings Temporary Increases of Charges Act, 1918?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to this question is very lengthy, and with the permission of the House I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that there will be no increase in the statutory charges without the House being consulted?

Sir A. GEDDES: The House passed the Statutory Undertakings Temporary Increase of Charges Act, 1918.
The following is the statement referred to:
The Board of Trade require that notice of any application made to them under the Act in question shall be served by the company upon all the local authorities within their area of supply. The application is also advertised in a local newspaper. The advertisement and notices must state that any representations in regard to the proposed increases of price should be sent to the Board of Trade and copies to the company within fourteen days. The Board also require the company to supply them with detailed statements showing the financial state of the undertaking, and estimates of the effect of the increased charge. The financial statements and estimates are carefully examined by the Department with the assistance of an accountant with a view to compliance with the requirement of the Act that no modification of the charging powers shall be authorised which is more than sufficient with due care and management to enable the dividend allowed by the Act to be paid. Any representations made to them by local, authorities or persons interested are considered, and if the Board of Trade are satisfied that the company are entitled to relief under the Act an Order is made accordingly. Provision, is made in the Order that no dividend shall be paid by the company until a certificate has been furnished to and accepted by the Board of Trade, signed by an accountant approved by them that the accounts of the company are correct and are compiled in accordance with the statutory requirements relating thereto; that the revenue account has not been debited with any expenditure of an. improper nature or
different in character from those usually debited by the company in the revenue account for any previous year, and if the amount carried forward to the following year is greater than the corresponding item in the preceding year, the certificate must contain a statement explanatory of the increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

WAGONS.

Sir E. NICHOLL: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that many men have been discharged and many more under notice in the china clay district near St. Austell, Cornwall, in consequence of the shortage of railway wagons to take away the china ready for shipment and transport to the potteries; and what efforts, if any, are being made to relieve the position, as most of the men, through unemployment, are compelled to accept the unemployment donation, a particularly serious matter in view of the country's finances and the men's anxiety for continuous employment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Rhys Williams): I am aware that the china clay district near St. Austell, is, together with many other districts, suffering from the shortage of railway wagons, and the possibility of improving the situation is engaging the attention of the Ministry of Transport.

Sir E. NICHOLL: The position is extremely serious. I had a telegram to-day of about fourteen sheets—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

REGENT'S CANAL (BARGES).

Mr. SHORT: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a number of laden barges have boon lying idle for two months or thereabouts in the Regent's Canal Dock, Stepney; and, if so, whether he will take steps to facilitate the release of such barges for trading purposes.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: I am informed that seven or eight sailing barges have been lying in the Regent's Canal Dock, Stepney, for a considerable time, laden with wine and other merchandise discharged from steamers, for which the traders have no storage accommodation. These barges are privately owned, but representations
have been made with a view to securing their more efficient use. The Ministry of Transport has no powers to do more.

RAILWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. CHADWICK: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make any statement as to the composition of the Railway Advisory Committee and on the immediate problems on, which it will be called upon to advise; and whether it is his intention to obtain from that body a review of railway policy in general so as to guide the Government in its future attitude towards the railways?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: The composition of the Advisory Committee to take the place of the Railway Executive Committee for the purpose of giving advice to the Government is under consideration, and I regret that it is not possible for the present to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we can have that information?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: As soon as it can be done.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the time?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I cannot.

RAILWAYS (WOMEN EMPLOYED).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport how many women were employed on the British rail ways on the 11th November, 1918; the number employed at the present time; and whether, considering the number of demobilised soldiers and sailors who are out of employment, he will forthwith take steps to dispense with the services of women employed on work generally recognised as men's work replacing them as far as possible by discharged soldiers and sailors?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: The number of women employed by the fourteen principal British railway companies on the 11th November, 1918, was 55,797. On the 30th July, 1919, which is the latest date for which the figures are available, the number has been reduced to 34,545. Most of the women still employed are only retained temporarily pending the return of the men who left the companies' service
to join the Army and have not yet been demobilised, but who have been promised that the positions which they left shall be kept open for them. The desirability of giving employment as far as possible to demobilised sailors and soldiers is fully realised.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that 38,000 railway employés are still not demobilised?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: That question should be addressed to the War Office.

Mr. WATERSON: May I ask if any steps have been taken by the Ministry of Transport to secure the demobilisation of these men in order to get on with the making of vehicles that will remove the congestion of traffic in the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

DAMAGED ARMY LORRIES, RICHBOROUGH.

Mr. HOHLER: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the damaged lorries landed at Richborough are towed from that place to Slough or to what other place; what is the distance and what is the average cost of towing a damaged lorry between those places, including the return journey of the towing lorry; and will he give the number of damaged lorries so towed from the 1st of August to the 1st of November last?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Damaged lorries landed at Richborough are towed to Slough, a distance of 120 miles. It is estimated that the average inclusive cost of towing between these two places is £15 per vehicle. During the period between 1st August and 1st November the number of lorries so dealt with was 3,200.

Mr. HOHLER: Is it a reasonable and businesslike proceeding to tow these lorries 120 miles and make no preparation for their repair on the spot?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The towing was an emergency measure. There are no facilities at Richborough for repairing anything like this number of lorries.

Mr. HOHLER: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no end of buildings at Richborough, and that all that is required is machinery, and how long is this towing going on?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes; all that is required is machinery, and it is an exceedingly difficult business getting machinery.

Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say what is the difference between taking them by road?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer is that they are being taken by road.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PEACE PROSPECTS.

PRIME MINISTER'S GUILDHALL SPEECH.

MR. BOTTOMLEY (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether his statement at the Guildhall Banquet on Saturday, to the effect that he hoped that the time was not far distant when the Powers would be able to renew the attempt to organise peace among the warring sections in Russia was intended to imply a willingness to open negotiations with Lenin and Trotsky, and, if so, whether the Government, before taking any such momentous step, would give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): On receipt of this notice, I sent my hon. Friend a message that the Prime Minister was coming on Thursday, and suggesting that the question might be postponed until then, but I quite understand that may not be a suggestion which commends itself to the hon. Member. The speech of my right hon. Friend, in which he spoke of the conditions during the winter, shows that there is no immediate intention of doing anything of the kind, and I can give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that no step such as is contemplated in the question will be taken until the House of Commons has had a full opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister that at least so far as a certain section of this House is concerned there exists considerable resentment that he should choose the free and easy atmosphere of an after-dinner speech to convey a matter of urgent public policy rather than the more serious atmosphere of this House?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also convey to the Prime
Minister the information that it would have been better for that declaration to have been made, in accordance with the Labour policy advocated on Russia, when the matter was discussed here in this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first question, I do not myself see that such a remark is in the least called for. The Guildhall banquets have been regarded for I do not know how many generations as a suitable occasion for making a speech of that kind. I did not notice, and I listened to the Debate very carefully, that there was anything in the speech of my right hon. Friend which was at all in accord with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend opposite.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the Government policy laid down, that there is a chance of peace in Russia in the spring, the blockade is to be kept on this winter?

Sir S. HOARE: Are we to understand that the Government have in no way departed from the policy described by the Secretary of State for War on Wednesday last, and carried by an overwhelming vote in this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that is exactly how the speech strikes me. It is simply an expression of the hope, which I am sure the whole House will share, that there may be some method of obtaining Peace in Russia.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In view of the apparent divergence in policy indicated in the speeches of the Secretary of State for War and the Prime Minister, may there not be an early opportunity of having the subject discussed once again in this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is any need for discussion, an opportunity will be given, but I did not myself notice any such discrepancy.

DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. DOYLE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister what is the amount of money lent by this country to Russia for war purposes; what is the prospect of securing either the interest or the principal from the government of that country in view of our evacuation of Russia by British troops; whether the Government has
finally decided to forgo such debt, and, if in the latter event, what will be the loss to this country per head of the population; and, in view of the openly declared hostility of the Bolshevist. Government, what steps he proposes to take to protect and, if possible, promote the commercial and industrial interests of Great Britain in Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The sums lent by this country to the former Imperial Russian Government during the War amount to an outstanding liability of £568,000,000. In addition, £1,350,000 was lent to the provisional Government of Archangel after the Armistice; the Government hope that this debt will eventually be paid. As regards the last part of the question, arrangements are being made by the Department of Oversea Trade to attach a commercial mission to the British High Commissioner who is about to proceed to South Russia. All possible steps will be taken in an. admittedly difficult situation to promote the industrial and commercial industries of Great Britain in Russia.

Mr. BILLING: Are passports to be given to commercial men, to trade with the existing Soviet Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer refers to South Russia.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the £568,000,000 include the £100,000,000 recently spent?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, it does not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement that the present Bolshevik Government are prepared to recognise the debt?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I have seen that frequently stated, but I do not attach great commercial value to it.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the conditions which the Danish Royal Government is seeking to impose on the Russian plenipotentiaries arranging for the exchange of British prisoners held by the Soviet Government; what progress has been made in the negotiations; and whether it is hoped to get our men out of Russia before the cold weather sets in?

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is that the Danish Government have agreed that a meeting should take place at Copenhagen between representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, provided that they are previously informed of the personnel of the delegations, which should be small, and that the right of the delegations to remain in Denmark shall automatically cease as soon as either party breaks off negotiations. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government are awaiting a reply from the Soviet Government to a message which has been dispatched inquiring the date on which the Soviet delegates will present themselves on the Esthonian Front; as regards the third, His Majesty's Government hope most sincerely that the negotiations may be brought to a successful issue and that our men may be able to leave Russia at an early date.

Mr. HURD: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is able to relieve the great anxiety of the parents of those boys by saying that they are now safe, and how they can get letters and parcels sent to them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

GENERAL YUDENITCH.

Mr. SWAN: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Yudenitch is acting as a subordinate of Admiral Koltchak or of General Denikin, or whether he is acting quite independently?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: General Yudenitch has fully recognised the authority of Admiral Koltchak.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. SWAN: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have enlisted for service under the various Russian Governments?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Foreign Office have no information on this subject.

UKRAINIANS (FIGHTING).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's
Government is in any way assisting General Denikin to fight the Ukrainians under General Petliura; and, if so, is there a British officer with the forces there engaged instructed to report on the methods of warfare adopted?

Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. In answer to the first part of the question, it is well known that we are providing General Denikin with military material, and this policy has lately received the emphatic approval of the House. The Volunteer Army has only recently come in contact with Petliura, and in the hostilities which ensued the latter, who has since declared war on Denikin, was the aggressor. General Holman has reported that "some of his (Petliura's) bands treacherously attacked two squadrons of the Volunteer Army at night after having come to an agreement with them." As regards the second part of the question, British liaison officers are attached to General Denikin's troops operating on the Odessa—Kiev front, part of which are in contact with Petliura's troops.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the British Government are supporting General Denikin in fighting the people in the Ukraine, who are actually fighting for independence, and are not fighting for the Bolshevists?

Mr. FORSTER: No; the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the equipment placed at the disposal of General Denikin was given free of any stipulation as to the particular enemy against whom he used it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is true. I am merely stating the facts. The occurrence to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was a recent one. I do not doubt the general situation will be taken into account.

Mr. IRVING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ukranians complain that it is Denikin who is the aggressor? Why should we not accept the statement of the Ukranians in preference to that of Denikin?

Mr. FORSTER: Well, Sir, we have great faith in the statement made by the British officers.

Mr. HOGGE: In view of the Prime Minister's projected peace proposals, do you propose to stop these supplies?

Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat that question to the Prime Minister.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have a British officer sent out to Petliura's forces, and have their side also given?

Mr. FORSTER: I am quite sure if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself care to go—! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Captain W. BENN: Do we understand—

Mr. SPEAKER: called upon Mr. Billing to put the next question on the Paper (No. 60—Old Age Pensions).

PERSIA.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason for the presence of British and Indian troops on Persian soil; when it is intended to withdraw these troops; and, if they are there for the protection of Persian interests, when it is expected that Persia will be able to look after her own interests?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: British and Indian troops were required in Persia in order, to protect her frontiers from external invasion and to secure internal tranquillity. Neither of these menaces has as yet altogether disappeared, but the House may rest assured that the troops will be withdrawn as soon as it is found possible. The date at which Persia will be able to look after her own interests will depend upon the degree of rapidity with which the provisions of the recently concluded agreement are put into effective operation, and on neither side is there the least desire for delay.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it necessary to pay any attention to the internal state of Persia as distinct from protecting the frontiers from external pressure?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give notice.

Colonel YATE: 28.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are the officers appointed to form the joint commission of military experts to estimate the needs of Persia in respect of the scope and strength of the Persian
military and police forces under the terms of the recent agreement; and which of these officers have practical knowledge of Persia and of the Persian language and people?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The names of the officers in question are Major-General W. E. Dickson, Colonel Moens, General Huddleston, Lieut.-Colonel Fraser, Major J. B. Steele, Brevet-Colonel J. W. Lament, Acting Lieut.-Colonel Irvine Fortescue. General Dickson has spent much time in Persia, and has, I believe, a proficient knowledge of the language; of the other officers' linguistic attainments I am unaware. All have, however, been selected in consultation with the Persian Government who attached much greater importance to general attainments than to previous service in Persia, and I am confident of their ability to meet the requirements of the case.

Colonel YATE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when we sent a Mission to Persia on a similar errand a century or more ago, about 1800, we selected the very finest Persian scholars, and will not the same be done now?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of any question to the Minister as to what happened a hundred years ago.

FOREIGN PASSPORTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British Consuls abroad have been instructed to refuse visas to foreign passports except an undertaking has been given that the bearer will not seek employment in this country; if so, under what Statute or Regulation is this condition enforced; and is the view held at the Foreign Office that only rich aliens are to be allowed in Great Britain?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and third paragraphs is in the negative. Instructions issued with regard to visas are designed to save foreigners from making fruitless journeys to this country. It is necessary at the present time to prevent an undesirable influx of alien labour into this country. For this purpose, in pursuance of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, and the Aliens Order, 1919, made thereunder, leave to land in the United Kingdom
must, as a general rule, be refused to aliens who have come here merely to look for work, or who have been recruited by an employer in this country otherwise than with the approval of the Minister of Labour. In these circumstances, it is proper and in the interests of the aliens to prevent them, so far as possible, from starting on the journey, and instructions with regard to visas are framed accordingly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that French or American people are not allowed to come to this country to look for work, and that thus no poor people can come except under contract with employers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not understand the hon. Member's distinction between poor and rich, and the rest of the question is answered in the reply already given.

Mr. HOUSTON: Do not the United States exercise even more rigid regulations?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will any of the men now to be deported from the United States be allowed to come into this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

FINLAND.

Mr. SWAN: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is at present a British Military Mission in Finland, and, if so, how many British officers and men are attached?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. There is a British Military Mission in Finland which is a branch of the Military Mission to the Baltic States. The present strength is six officers and six other ranks.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can my hon. Friend say who is in charge of this Mission, or is it under the orders of the Admiralty in the Baltic?

Mr. FORSTER: Not that I am aware of?

Mr. HOGGE: Will he say what they are doing?

Mr. FORSTER: Their functions are varied and responsible. If the hon. Member wants detailed information, I shall be glad to give it if I can.

PEACE TREATY.

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps can be taken to make further copies of the German Peace Treaty available for Members and the public; and when copies of the Austrian Peace Treaty will be similarly obtainable?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Treaty of Peace with Germany of the 28th June last and the Agreements signed on the same date will be republished in about a. fortnight's time, and the Treaty of Peace with Austria will be laid before Parliament shortly afterwards. Should the House desire it, and if it will overlook the breach of etiquette, I will have six copies of the latter Treaty without the map placed in the Library of the House this week.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether, in view of the steps which are being taken to arouse further interest in the League of Nations proposals, my hon. Friend will consider the advisability of having, at all events, the League of Nations portion of the covenant printed as a separate part from the main body of the Treaty in a cheap edition?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will consider that.

MONTENEGRO.

Mr. R. McNEILL: 34.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to his statement on the 1st of July, 1919, that the object in. sending Count de Salis to Montenegro was to ascertain the real desire of the Montenegrin people as to their own future and that he would consider the suggestion that the Report, when received, should be laid before the House, he will say whether his present refusal to let Parliament and the country know Count de Salis's Report as to what has been happening in Montenegro is due to any official or unofficial request by the Serbian Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. McNEILL: 35.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say for what purpose Serbian troops still occupy Montenegro, after Peace has been signed between Austria-Hungary and the Allies; if he is aware that the Montenegrin people is in danger of being exterminated by the Serbians; whether Serbia has the sanction of the Allied and Associated Powers in treating the most defenceless of our Allies as conquered territory; whether such treatment is to be allowed to continue indefinitely in spite of the conclusion of Peace; and what steps have been taken to carry out the frequent pledge of His Majesty's Government that the people of Montenegro should not be deprived of their independence except by their own consent?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of Montenegro is at present, engaging the attention of the Supreme Council in Paris, who are considering the whole subject of South-Eastern Europe. In these circumstances it would obviously be undesirable to deal seriatim with the controversial points raised by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. McNEILL: Can my hon. Friend deny that the Salis Report gives a most appalling description of the proceedings of the Serbians in oppressing the Montenegrins?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have already slated that the Salis Report can scarcely be published, and I should not like to divulge its contents.

Lord R. CECIL: How long has the Supreme Council been considering the question of Montenegro? Did they not begin last February?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am disposed to think my Noble Friend knows more about it than I do

Sir S. HOARE: Would it not be better to give some publicity to these controversial questions, so as to give public opinion in this House an opportunity of deciding?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we expect some statement in this House of the Government's policy as regards South-Eastern Europe?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend fails to observe that it is
not a matter for His Majesty's Government but for the Supreme Council in Paris.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have not the French and American representatives in Parliament had a full statement made to them and an opportunity for discussion? Surely each democracy looks after its own interests?

Mr. McNEILL: May I ask whether this Report which we have been asking the hon. Gentleman to lay on the Table does not deal with a mere statement of facts as to the condition of Montenegro and the desire of the Montenegrin people as to their own future; does it not consist of facts rather than of policy, and why cannot the country know what the facts are?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot carry in my mind at the moment every detail of this Report. Intended as it was for the guidance of His Majesty's Government, it is not suitable for general publication.

Lord R. CECIL: Cannot my hon. Friend make some kind of extract from the Report giving the facts? Does he not realise that it is really becoming little short of a scandal, the lack of information we have on foreign affairs?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: This House in my recollection of it has not been favourable to expurgated reports, but I shall be glad to consider the point of my Noble Friend.

Mr. McNEILL: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Count de Salis on the treatment of Montenegro by the Serbians; and, if not, whether he will provide an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter at an early date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In a matter of this kind the Government must act in concord with our Allies, and, in view of the difficult situation in that part of Europe, the conclusion reached at Paris was that it would be undesirable that the Report should be published at present. For the same reason I do not think that it would be right to have a discussion in the House of Commons.

Mr. McNEILL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for more than two years past some Members of this House, including myself, have put questions upon this subject to the Government, and refrained from
pressing those questions because they were told that it was not in the national interest during the War, and is that state of things to continue indefinitely? Are the House and the country not even to have the facts that exist in South-Eastern Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly it would be very wrong that that state of things to which my hon. Friend refers should continue, but he knows, and the House knows, it is not a matter which we can decide by ourselves. As I said, it was considered in Paris, and it was unanimously agreed that it would be undesirable that the Report should be published at present.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not possible for the Government to give us any of the facts? I recognise the undesirability of discussion, but surely we ought to know what is going on in this and other parts of the world?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Is not that a different question? It is hardly possible for me to make a statement as to facts without going into policy. No one knows better than my Noble Lord how very difficult the situation really is in Serbia and those other countries.

Mr. McNEILL: In consequence of my right hon. Friend's answer, I give notice that I shall raise this on the Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

COLONIAL FRUITS.

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: 36 and 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department if he is aware (1) that, owing to the claims of parties to market rights under monopolies, created several hundreds of years ago, who have refused consent to the Port of London Authority for the holding of sales of food by auction on their own premises, there is fear that large supplies of Colonial fruits may be again diverted to Hamburg or other Continental ports from the Port of London, as happened for some years previously to the War; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter;
(2) that parties claiming market rights under monopolies, created several hundreds of years ago, have refused consent to the Port of London Authority for the holding of sales of food by auction on their
own premises, thereby interfering with the free sale of fresh fruits imported from our overseas Possessions in great demand by the British public, considerably increasing-the existing congestion of London traffic, and adding substantially to the cost paid by the consumer for such fruits owing to the fact that such produce has under present conditions to be transported across the City of London, received and delivered from warehouses, and subjected to additional tolls and expenses; and if he will say if he is prepared to promote early legislation to remedy this state of affairs?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply to these questions. The Food Controller is having inquiries made into the position, arid has referred the matter to the recently constituted Departmental Committee on Wholesale Food Markets for investigation and early report.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Can the hon. Member name the markets referred to in this question?

Sir N. MOORE: The markets are Covent Garden and Spitalfields.

SHELLFISH.

Mr. IRVING: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries formerly granted the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee authority to incur, for a period of ten years, an annual expenditure not exceeding £1,000, under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Regulation Act of 1894; whether he is aware that permission is now only granted from year to year, and that such permission when granted is occasionally so delayed that the period to which it refers has partly elapsed before the permission is obtained by the committee; whether the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will now return to their former practice of granting this permission for a ten-yearly period; and, if not, what are the Board's reasons for departing from their former practice in this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir-Arthur Boscawen): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Since 1915 the Board's authority has, as stated, been renewed only from year to year. The maximum period of delay
occurred in 1916 and amounted in all to twenty-eight days, when the pressure of war work on the Department was extremely heavy. Expenditure under the authority is restricted by Statute to the stocking or restocking of public fisheries for shellfish. Before the question of renewing the authority arises again, the Board hope to discuss the question of further expenditure with the committee in the light of the results hitherto achieved and of other relevant considerations.

Mr. IRVING: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Department are not prepared to consider the disturbing influence of this yearly limitation of the work of the Board, inasmuch as they obviously cannot enter into contracts from year to year?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my hon. Friend will gather from the end of my answer that they are prepared to consider that with all other relevant considerations.

Mr. IRVING: But consideration does not amount to much.

DISTRIBUTION (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).

Mr. FINNEY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the council of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent asking that steps be immediately taken to ensure, as far as possible, that food shall reach the consumer with the minimum risk of it becoming spoiled in transit, and that the Government arrange for the more speedy clearance of food by means of the railway, and insist upon the provision of properly equipped cold-storage carriages on the railways for the conveyance of food; and whether he will indicate the steps the Government have taken in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received the resolution referred to, but I can add nothing to the answer given on Monday last by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport when he stated that every effort would be made to meet cases of the nature indicated in the question.

FAT CATTLE (DEVON).

Mr. LAMBERT: 66.
asked the Food Controller if he is aware that there are a number of fat cattle in Devon that, owing to the orders of his Department, cannot be disposed of, thereby involving a loss in
the condition of the cattle, decreasing the meat supply, and causing considerable loss to the graziers of cattle?

Mr. McCURDY: I am aware that embarrassment is being caused to graziers by the fact that all the cattle and sheep which they desire to send forward at the present time cannot be accepted for slaughter. The reason is that at this season of the year the supply of homegrown cattle ready for slaughter is always at its maximum, and the available supplies of home-killed meat, taken in conjunction with recent arrivals of imported meat, at the moment are, and will for a few weeks be, in-excess of requirements. I would point out that the guarantee to farmers is not that the Ministry of Food will take over all the beasts which they desire to sell, but that it will take over at fixed prices all the beasts which, can be passed into consumption. The object of this guarantee was to stimulate home-production and to stabilise prices, and in these respects it has been eminently successful. If farmers think that a reversion to free imports and normal methods of distribution would relieve their embarrassment, I can only say that the Food Controller and the President of the Board of Agriculture are willing to consider the proposition. I desire to repeat that if all restrictions and controls are removed at the end of this year, and the consumptive demands of this country reach their prewar standard, there must be a world shortage of meat next year, in view of prospective Continental and North American requirements.

Mr. LAMBERT: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that, if the farmers desire it the Food Controller will remove all restrictions connected with the price of agricultural products!

Mr. McCURDY: What I said was that if the farmers desired it the Food Controller and the President of the Board of Agriculture are willing to consider the proposition of the removal of all restrictions upon agricutural prices at the end of the present year.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why is it the Food Controller does not synchronise the imports of foreign meat with the maximum production of home-grown meat?

Mr. McCURDY: My hon. Friend's question contains an implication of fact which is not warranted. He has no ground for
the suggestion that the Food Controller has failed to synchronise the arrival of foreign meat with the home market.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has not my hon. Friend just told us that the imports of foreign meat are at their maximum, or very largely in excess of the normal, at the present moment?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir; what I said was that this was the period of the maximum supply for home-grown meat. In regard to the importation of foreign meat, my hon. Friend must not assume that the arrangements are made by the Food Controller.

Major HOWARD: Is the statement true that the supply of home-grown meat in the market during the last few weeks is lower than any corresponding week for the last six or seven years?

Mr. McCURDY: I see no reason, on the facts known to me, to challenge that statement. But I have no information on the point.

COST OF LIVING.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 68.
asked the Food Controller what are the articles of food upon the cost of which is based the official percentage of rise or fall in the cost of living; is the controlled price of these articles that which is taken at the time of computing the cost of living; how is controlled price determined; is it treated as a mean between maximum market price and minimum market price, and how frequently are controlled prices changed; and, in view of the fact that the cost of food is so high and is a potent factor in retarding industrial recovery, can he arrange that controlled prices shall promptly respond to each improvement in shipping and other conditions?

Mr. McCURDY: The official figures, which are published by the Ministry of Labour, are based upon the prices of the following articles of food: Meat (various cuts), both home-killed and imported, bacon, bread, flour, tea, sugar, milk, potatoes, margarine, butter, cheese, eggs, and fish. The prices from which the figures are compiled are the actual prices paid by the working classes for the articles generally bought by them, and are not necessarily maximum prices. The necessary particulars are collected by the Ministry of Labour throughout the country. The answer to the last part of the
question is in the affirmative. Retail prices are fixed after the fullest inquiry into the costs at the various stages of production and distribution and are continually being revised in the light of changes in any of these factors.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has answered that portion of my question in which I ask is the controlled price of these articles that which is taken at the time of computing the cost of living? Having regard to the fact that these figures as to the cost of living are so constantly used in trade disputes it is most important that we should know this.

Mr. McCURDY: Yes, Sir. I think when the hon. Gentleman reads my reply he will find that I have given a very precise answer to the question he put to me.

FODDER (CONTROL PRICES).

Mr. FINNEY: 69.
asked the Food Controller whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the council of the county borough of Stoke-oil-Trent asking for the renewal of control prices for fodder; and if he can indicate the intentions of the Government respecting the same?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am informed that no resolution from the council of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent, asking for the renewal of control prices for fodder, has been received either by the Ministry of Food or by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. As regard the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hanley, on Thursday last.

SUGAR (DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. FINNEY: 70.
asked the Food Controller, whether has attention has been called to complaints from householders-in Stoke-on-Trent respecting the unsatisfactory distribution of sugar; that, whilst confectioners are allowed ample supplies for their purposes, the supply to house holders is very much reduced, causing much inconvenience and suffering, especially so in the case of infirm and old people and mothers and young children; and whether he can arrange that adequate supplies for the use of house holders shall be made available in the early future?

Mr. McCURDY: No complaints of unsatisfactory distribution of sugar have been received from the Stoke-on-Trent district. The recent decision to fix the sugar ration at 8 ozs. per head per week instead of 12 ozs., at which it formerly stood, was arrived at on account of the shortage at present existing in the world's supply of sugar, and the resulting necessity that consumption in this country should be reduced. Allotments of sugar to confectioners have, in common with those to other manufacturers, also been substantially reduced. It will, however, be understood that any undue restriction on the use of sugar for manufacturing purposes would inevitably give rise to unemployment in the industries affected; and in the case of the confectionery trade in particular, would cause very serious hardship to the large number of small traders who mainly depend for their livelihood upon the sale of sweets and chocolate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the confectionery trade and the manufacturers have not had their supplies reduced pro rata with the ordinary consumer of sugar, and is he aware that that gives the impression that the manufacturers by bringing pressure have been able to keep up their supplies?

Mr. McCURDY: The reduction to manufacturers is not pro rata with the reduction to the domestic consumer. The reduction in the case of manufacturers amounts to 25 per cent., and the reason why it has not been a larger reduction is because in the case of manufacturers it must inevitably lead to unemployment and to greater hardship for all classes of the community who are dependent for their livelihood upon the supply of sugar. In the judgment o the Food Ministry, their case is much Larder than that of the consumer.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had the same question twice.

MILK.

Mr. DOYLE: 71.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware of the fact that, since the controlled price of milk has been advanced to 11d. and 1s. per quart, in many cases against the wishes of farmers and dealers, the consumption of milk has been reduced by at least one half amongst the working classes and that it is the chil-
dren of tender age who are the chief sufferers; and if he can see his way, in view of the serious effect on infant mortality, to revise the scale with a view to a reduction in price?

Mr. McCURDY: The Food Controller is aware that the consumption of milk has been reduced, but the reduction does not approach the extent suggested by the hon. Member. The decrease in consumption reported during the month of October varied from 5 per cent, to 30 per cent., according to the district. As regards the last part of the question, the prices fixed by the Ministry are, as the hon. Member will be aware, maximum and not fixed prices. They were decided upon after the most careful investigation of the cost of production and distribution, and the Food Controller does not, in all the circumstances and on the information before him, consider that he would be justified in modifying them.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from time to time we have asked whether the Food Minister would issue a statement showing the reason why the price of milk is so high at the present time?

Mr. McCURDY: The whole of the figures and facts with regard to the cost of the production of milk upon which the present price was fixed by the Controller are at the present moment before a Committee of the Divisional Food Commissioners of this country for investigation, and their Report is expected very shortly.

Mr. HURD: Will that Report be published?

Sir P. MAGNUS: Is it not a fact that in consequence of the difficulties in regard to distribution large quantities of milk are at present being made into cheese?

Mr. McCURDY: I do not think there is any doubt that the conclusions which will be arrived at by the Committee now sitting for the purpose of investigating in a critical spirit the figures upon which the Food Controller has arrived at his decision will be published at an early date.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report that some farmers in places where there is a surplus of milk have been giving it to the pigs
instead of sending it to the market, and, if so, is there any way of dealing with them?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it true that at an inquiry held on Friday last in Ireland it was stated that there was plenty of milk there, and that the difficulty was that of collection and distribution, and that the same difficulty existed in England; and, if that is so, is the hon. Gentleman in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport, so as to facilitate the transport of milk, in order that it can be used for the children who are dying for the want of it?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir; I have had no notice of the evidence laid before the Departmental Committee in Ireland, and, so far as I am at present aware, the difficulties with regard to milk at present are not difficulties of distribution.

Mr. HURD: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures of the cost of production upon which the Ministry based the price will be published?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes, I have explained that there was a large conference of representatives from all parts of the country appointed to challenge the decision of the Food Ministry with regard to the price of milk, and the whole of the figures were laid before them for that purpose.

AGRICULTURE (ROYAL COM- MISSION).

Major ENTWISTLE: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the National Cattle Food Trade Association can be represented on the Royal Commission to investigate existing agricultural conditions; and, if not, whether permission will be granted to a representative of the association to be present during the sitting of the Commission to hear the evidence?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As regards the first part of the question, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull on the 27th ultimo. As regards the latter part of the question, the sittings of the Royal Commission are held in private. The full evidence is, however, published in instalments by His Majesty's Stationery Office.
Three volumes have already been published, and can be obtained by the association from any bookseller.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the dissatisfaction felt by this very important cattle food trade, could not one of their representatives be allowed to be present to hear the evidence, under the pledge of secrecy, if required?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No. The question of whether the meeting is private or not depends on the Commission, and not on the Board, and they have decided to hold their meetings in private.

Captain R. TERRELL: When may we expect the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope shortly.

Captain TERRELL: What does he mean by shortly? Does he mean this year, next year, some time, or never?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I mean in a reasonable period.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES.

CLOTH.

Mr. HOHLER: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Munitions how many yards of cloth (various) have been handed over to him by the Army authorities for disposal and when were the same handed over; how much has been sold; and how much has been offered for sale at public auction?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to my hon. Friend's question will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the reply:
The quantities of woollen cloth of various kinds notified by the War Office as surplus to their requirements up to 1st November, and the quantities sold up to that date are shown in the table following. The great bulk of this material has only recently been handed over and sales were delayed pending a decision on the standard clothing scheme. None of the cloth has yet been offered for sale by public auction, but public tenders have been issued recently for approximately 10,750,000 yards, and these tenders are now under consideration.

Total amount declared surplus to 1st November.
Total amount sold.


1.
Cloth.





Vicuna
257,411
20,320



Black union
57,630
39,030



Drab union
143,260
143,260



Black greatcoat
108,604
5,000



Greatcoat, D.S.
72,080
Nil.



Portuguese Grey
292,222
150,000



Anti-Gas
290,000
Nil.



Greatcoat, Russian
1,600
Nil.



Overcoating,





S.A.L.C
150,809
1,000



Mohair, seal brown
164,747
Nil.



Khaki
1,519
Nil.



D.M. fleece
27,312
Nil.



Camel fleece lining
62,309
Nil.


2.
Serge.





Black
39,325
33,271



White lining
100,000
Nil.



D.M. Mixture
2,504,103
71,400



Hospital brown
23,816
Nil.



Grey green
2,426
Nil.


3.
Tweed.





D.S. suits
2,199,000
Nil.



Lining jerkins
150,000
Nil.



For caps
6,293
Nil.


4.
Tartan.





Highland
61,300
Nil.



D.M
2,000,000
Nil.



Black
111,418
Nil.


5.
Whipcord
724,435
44,400


6.
Bedford cord
100,000
Nil.


7.
Garbardine
1,980,113
Nil.



Total
11,631,732
507,681

HARDWOOD.

Mr. HOHLER: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how much hardwood has been handed over to him by the Army authorities for sale, and when was the same handed over; how much has been sold; and how much has been offered for sale at public auction?

Mr. KELLAWAY: To obtain an estimate of the amount of hardwood handed over by the War Office, as distinct from other Government Departments, would involve a good deal of labour. I may, say, however, that the quantity is trifling compared with the quantities handed over by the Air Ministry and by the Admiralty. Since January 30,500,000 feet have been sold, approximately 75 per cent, by auc-
tion. The present stock is approximately 11,500,000 superficial feet. This is being sold as fast as possible.

BEDDING MATERIAL.

Mr. HURD: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Ministry is selling part-worn bedding material, mattresses, etc.; whether, in the interests of public health, the provisions of the Rag Flock Act are complied with in every case so that the flock is made to conform to the prescribed standards of cleanliness; and whether he is aware that the Admiralty in selling similar material make this stipulation before disposal?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Disposal Board is selling part-worn bedding material and mattresses. I am advised that the Rag Flock Act does not apply so as to prevent the sale of manufactured articles containing flock, but is framed to prevent the sale of unclean flock for use in the manufacture of other articles.

Mr. HURD: Are all precautions taken as to the cleanliness of this stuff that is sold?

Mr. KELLAWAY: We certainly do not sell anything that would be likely to be dangerous to health.

Mr. HURD: But are any precautions taken?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend any informatiom he desires as to the precautions that are taken.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister who will be the British representatives at the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations; whether the House of Commons will be allowed any voice in their selection; whether Papers of the proceedings will be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons; and to what Votes will the salaries and expenses of the British representatives on the Council be charged?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The British Government will, if possible, be represented at the first meeting by the Foreign Secretary. This appointment must, of course, be made on the responsibility of the Government. To what extent the pro-
ceedings will be published must be decided by the Council of the League. There will be a special Vote for the League of Nations.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend is voicing the policy of the Government in that only one party in. this House is to be represented on the Council of the League? Is this to be the future policy of the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has evidently not looked at the constitution of the League. There can be only one representative.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: How long will it be before the Government make up their minds what they are going to do with regard to this League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer shows that we have already agreed to a representative at the first meeting. The ultimate fate of the League of Nations does not depend on this country alone, but, as

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE, 1919.


First Report.


General.


Paragraph 2.



It would seem advisable that Treasury control should not only be resumed as quickly as possible, but that it should also be strengthened.
This has been done.


Paragraph 9.



The Accounting Officer of each spending Department should be a Treasury official appointed by and responsible solely to the Treasury.
This suggestion, together with others for strengthening the hands of Accounting Officers, is being considered by the Committee of Financial Officers presided over by the Secretary to the Treasury.


Paragraph 12.



Sums realised from the sale of surplus stores should be paid into a suspense account which should only be dealt with by the Treasury.
The bulk of these receipts for this year have already been appropriated by Parliament in aid of the Votes of certain Departments. These sums cannot be dealt with except in accordance with the Parliament authority so given. But the whole system of Appropriations-in-Aid will be reconsidered before next year.


Paragraph 25.



Provision of motor cars for the use of Ministers, officers, and officials should be discontinued.
Ministers surrendered their motor cars at the close of the Summer Session. It would be neither economical nor possible to abolish the use of cars on Government service altogether, but their number has been largely reduced and their use brought under stricter control.

the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, must depend very largely on what is done in America.

Lieut. - Commander. KENWORTHY: Have the Government chosen representatives for the Assembly of the League as distinct from the Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question, down.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT (GOVERNMENT ACTION).

Sir F. BANBURY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what suggestions of the Select Committee on National Expenditure made in their Reports of this Session he proposes to adopt?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am circulating a statement in answer to this question.

The following is the statement referred to:

Air Ministry.


Paragraph 34.



Estimates for 1919–20 were presented to Parliament by the Air Ministry before the consent of the Treasury had been obtained. This is a matter which calls for severe condemnation.
Definite instructions have been given that in future no Estimates shall be presented to Parliament before the consent of the Treasury has been obtained.


Second Report.


Bread Subsidy.


Paragraph 13.



The check upon prices of home-grown wheat purchased by millers does not appear to be complete and should be revised.
It is not considered practicable to examine in detail the whole of the transactions between millers and farmers. Millers are now instructed each month to buy home-grown wheat at prices which must not exceed on the average a fixed limit. Their monthly accounts are carefully scrutinised by experts, and if necessary, books and accounts are inspected locally and invoices called for.


The commission of 1s. per quarter allowed by the Grain Prices Order of the Ministry of Food to merchants and dealers supplying home-grown wheat to the mills is higher than is necessary; as all excess payments are a charge upon the Bread Subsidy this payment should be reconsidered.



The Commission of 1s. per quarter to merchants and dealers was a maximum fixed by an expert Committee. Under the arrangements made as regards the present crop it does not arise.


Paragraph 29.



A proposal to remit the extra charge for flour supplied to wholesale manufacturers of biscuits has been forwarded by the Ministry of Food for Treasury sanction. Your Committee is of opinion that this should not be authorised.
It has been decided not to remit this charge, but the charge has been reduced to the equivalent of the subsidy.


Paragraph 39.



Your Committee strongly recommends that Scheme B., namely, restriction of the subsidy to a rebate to bakers on flour used in bread making and to housewives for flour used for baking bread at home, should be reconsidered and revised with a view to its being adopted.
As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham on the 4th instant this question is being considered, but it is doubtful whether the Committee when making their recommendation realised the extension of Government control and the amount of interference with individuals which would be involved in, carrying it out.


Third Report.


Air Force.


Paragraph 32.



The position of the Assistant Financial Secretary should be greatly strengthened in order that finance may exercise its proper influence.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has summoned periodical meetings of the financial officers of other Departments, and is considering with them methods for strengthening the hands of the financial officers within their own Departments.



The position of the Assistant Financial Secretary at the Air Ministry is similar to that of the Assistant Financial Secretary at the War Office, each having independent power of criticism and of appeal, if necessary, to the Council through the Finance Member.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (COUNTING VOTES).

Major MORRISON-BELL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to do away with the long interval between the casting of the votes at a general or by-election and the subsequent counting and declaration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, provision has been made for an interval between the poll and the counting of the votes at Parliamentary elections in order to allow time for the receipt of ballot papers from absent voters, many of whom are serving in the Fleet and in France and Flanders and with the British Army of the Rhine. The question of dispensing with this interval, when circumstances permit, is under the consideration of the Government Departments concerned.

PRIME MINISTER (ATTENDANCE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Major EDWARD WOOD: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce on what day or days it would be possible for him to attend the House at Question time; and whether, when ho was able to attend, he would be able to answer the questions addressed to him on the Paper?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister will be in his place to answer questions on Thursday of this week and on subsequent Thursdays.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Prime Minister only be here to answer questions? Will he never be here to take his place as an ordinary Prime Minister?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have noticed the Prime Minister here frequently.

Mr. HOGGE: When notice is given to the Prime Minister on other occasions, why cannot the Prime Minister come? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of us think the excuses which are given all humbug?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making very offensive observations.

Mr. HOGGE: It is true!

Mr. SPEAKER: That is even more offensive.

PROPAGANDA.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether a propaganda campaign is being carried out by means of posters by His Majesty's Government; who is the Minister responsible for this campaign; what is the estimated total expenditure; and to what Vote or Votes will this money be charged?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

FORESTRY ACT (COMMISSIONERS).

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if be is now able to give the names and qualifications of the Commissioners to be appointed under the Forestry Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the answer to this question is rather long, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Will the Commissioner who is to be appointed Parliamentary representative be a supporter of the Government or a member of the Independent Liberal Opposition; and if he is to be a member of the Independent Liberal Opposition, will the Government kindly reconsider, that, as it will form an obvious anomaly?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait to see the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to: Names and qualifications of Commisioners to be appointed under the Forestry Act.

Lord Lovat (Chairman),

Owner of extensive woodlands and closely identified with forestry in Scotland. Director of Forestry, B.E.F., France. Member of Forestry Reconstruction Sub-Committee and of the Interim Forest Authority.

Mr. F. D. Acland, M.P.,

Chairman, Home-Grown Timber Committee. Chairman of the Forestry Reconstruction Sub-Committee. Chairman of the Interim Forest Authority

Lord Clinton,

Former President of English Forestry Association. Member of Interim Forest Authority.

Mr. L. Forestier-Walker, M.P.,

Will answer for the Commission in the House of Commons. Will represent Wales.

Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.,

Assistant Controller (Scotland) Timber Supply Department, Board of Trade. Honorary Secretary, former President, Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society. Member of Forestry Sub-Committee. Will represent Scotland.

Mr. T. B. Ponsonby,

Member of Interim Forest Authority. Identified with Forestry in Ireland. Will represent Ireland.

Mr. R. L. Robinson,

Member of Interim Forest Authority. Secretary Forestry Reconstruction Sub-Committee. Formerly Head of Joint Forestry Branches of the Board of Agriculture and Office of Woods. Distinguished career at Adelaide and Oxford Universities in Pure Science and Forestry.

Colonel W. T. Steuart-Fotheringham,

Member of Interim Forestry Authority. Assistant to Assistant Controller (Scotland) Timber Supply Department. Identified with Forestry Development in Scotland. Will represent Scotland.

RAILWAY STRIKE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. SWAN: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the machinery of local authorities was employed in the enrolment of volunteer workers in connection with the recent railway strike; under what statutory power local authorities acted in the matter; whether the costs incurred for publicity, etc., in this connection will be defrayed from the rates; and, if so, on what authority?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have no knowledge of what expenditure may have been incurred by local authorities in connection with the strike.

RELIEF OF DISTRESS IN EUROPE.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has agreed to give £1 for every £1 raised by
voluntary contributions for the purpose of feeding children in Armenia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, Southern Russia, and Hungary; and, if so, under which vote the Government contribution will fall?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. This scheme was fully explained in answers given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 3rd July and by myself on 11th August. The Governments of Great Britain, France, the United States and Italy agreed to provide certain sums for reconstruction and relief in Europe, and His Majesty's Government further undertook as part of their contribution to give £1 for every £1 raised and spent by charitable organisations in the United Kingdom for the relief of distress in Europe. Details of the scheme and of the circumstances which made it necessary were given in an official announcement which was published in the Press of 30th June. The expenditure to be incurred by the Treasury under the scheme was limited in the first place to £200,000, since raised to £400,000. The Government contribution is charged upon the £12,500,000 provided for "Loans and Grants for Reconstruction and Relief in War Areas" in the Estimate for Loans to Dominions and Allies for the year 1919–20. As part of this scheme of international relief large sums have been provided by the American Government and smaller constributions have been made by France and Italy.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of advising the Government to make a similar Grant of £1 per £1 for all money raised in this country for the relief of hungry children here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the two cases can be compared. We have been making very large payments out of the national funds for the relief of distress in this country.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the £1 for every £1 spent, or for every £1 raised?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For every £1 raised. That is to say, £1 for every £1 actually made available for the purposes of relief.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. BILLING: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether, when reviewing the Old
Age Pensions Act, he will consider the advisability of altering the present system which takes into account benefits winch the pensioner may receive from a friendly society or other provident organisation, thus penalising those who, from their own earnings, have endeavoured to make provision for old age as against the thriftless and improvident who at the qualifying age receive the full amount of pension?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This question will be considered in connection with the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HOHLER: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what has been the gross expenditure of the Department between the 1st of April and the 1st of October last, and the gross receipts, between those dates, distinguishing between the moneys due or receivable from other Government Departments and the moneys received from the public; and will he state the total amount which has been appropriated in aid of his Department and the total amount paid over to the Treasury between the above dates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The answer to my hon. Friend's question will be circulated in the OFFICTAL REPORT.

HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 62 and 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions (1) what is the number of persons on headquarters and district or regional staffs engaged in or about the management of houses or huts held in any way by the Munitions Housing Department;
(2) what is the number of houses under the management of the various local and central staffs of the Munitions Housing Department; and what is the total amount of the salaries paid centrally and locally to these various staffs?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Twenty-two persons are employed at headquarters and fifty-seven locally. The total salaries' are at the rate of £5,503 per annum for the headquarters staff and £10,976 per annum for
the local staffs. These staffs have also certain duties in connection with the management of hostels. The number of houses under the management of the Ministry of Munitions is 6,837.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it not be possible to abolish the Department and its expenses altogether, and put these houses under the Ministry of Health, which already looks after other houses?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been considering that for some weeks and negotiating with the Health Department as to whether the control of the housing of the military could not be carried through more properly by the Health Ministry.

ABERDEEN TRAWL FISHERMEN (LOOKOUT).

Mr. ROSE (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the lockout of the whole of the trawl fishermen of Aberdeen by the trawl owners on account of the men's claims to be released from duty for twenty-four hours after each trip in order to visit their wives and families; if he knows that the lockout has now lasted over nine weeks, that over 200 trawlers are laid up, that the average of fish values (when working) amount to £500 per boat per week and the aggregate tonnage 300 tons per day; that the lockout affects 8,000 people, 80 per cent, of whom are men and women discharged from Army and Navy work, and whether in view of the serious circumstances he is taking or has in contemplation any active measures to effect a settlement?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): Yes, Sir; I am aware of this regrettable dispute. An officer of my Department has been in continuous touch with the situation, has arranged several meetings of the parties and attended numerous conferences, but up to the present all efforts to find a basis for settlement have failed. The hon. Member may be assured that these efforts will be continued, and that my Department will do all in its power to bring the dispute to an end. No compulsory powers exist, and offers to refer the difference to arbitration have not been accepted.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask my right hon. Friend if any reports have reached him
since he received notice of my question, whether his attention has been called to statements in the Scottish public Press to the effect, that, if a compromise has not been exactly effected, it has been proposed with the hope of ending this unfortunate strike, and whether the prospects are not happier than they were when I sent him notice?

LORD-ADVOCATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Clyde): I am not perfectly certain of the relation in time of my hon. Friend's question and my information, but what I have stated is the latest information that I have, and I am daily in touch with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY BILLS.

INCREASED INTEREST RATE.

MR. BOTTOMLEY (Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason for the further increase to 5½ per cent, in the rate of discount for Treasury Bills, and whether this will not have the effect of nearly doubling the item of £5,000,000 estimated in the recent White Paper for additional interest during the latter half of the financial year; whether the object of the increase is to facilitate borrowing or to improve the adverse exchanges, and whether he is aware that it has already had the effect of causing an increase in the Bank rate and a serious fall in the price of Government securities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether, seeing that I have a question on the Paper on this subject for next Wednesday, a question on exactly the same ground ought to be put by private notice, thus cutting out my question for Wednesday?

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is an urgent one, and therefore I allowed the question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The raising of the rate for Treasury Bills was inevitable if the raising of the Bank rate, of the necessity for which the Bank of England convinced me, was to be effective. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the raising of the Treasury Bill rate, which was posterior to the rise in the Bank rate, caused the rise in Bank rate. The estimate of the Debt Charge for 1919–20, as
revised in the White Paper, included a margin for contingencies which should cover the extra cost of Treasury Bills. Any additional cost to the Exchequer in the current financial year would be repaid many times over to the nation and also to the Exchequer, if the steps which have been taken succeed in reducing credit inflation and lead to an earlier restoration of an effective gold standard. It is, of course, impossible within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question to state fully the reasons for the rise in the Bank rate, but I may observe that a rise in Bank rate is not unusual at this time of the year.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not a fact that the rise in the Bank rate followed a previous increase in the rate on Treasury Bills, and is not this the second increase since September? May I also ask whether the statement that it was inevitable is not really answered by the fact that the sale of Treasury Bills immediately prior to the increase was larger than before?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been one rise in the Bank rate and two rises in the rate on Treasury Bills. It is perfectly true that the previous rise in the rate on Treasury Bills was not preceded, except for a few days, by a serious falling off in the amount of Treasury Bills sold, but the hon. Member proceeds on the assumption that it would have been sufficient to have sold as many new Treasury Bills as old Treasury Bills which fell due. That would have been a mistake. We have also to provide for debt falling due in other ways.

Mr. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman connect the increase in the Bank rate with the increase in the rate on Treasury Bills, or with the particular gamble that is now taking place on the Stock Exchange?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain that I understand my right hon. Friend's question.

Mr. THOMAS: The abnormal issues that are taking place.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The first rise in the rate on Treasury Bills was made by me because I was not getting a sufficient amount from Treasury Bills. I therefore had to increase the terms which they offered. The rise in the Bank rate was made in view of the general financial con-
ditions, and the governor of the Bank convinced me that it was necessary. It was made before the second rise in the rate on Treasury Bills, but, of course, when the Bank rate rose, I should not have got muck money from Treasury Bills until a corresponding rise had taken place, because it would have been anticipated. Let me add that, owing to the immense amount of short-term borrowing by the Government, no rise, in the Bank rate can be effective for the purpose for which such rises took place before the War unless corresponding action is taken by the Government in respect of Treasury Bills.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House is not entitled to know what additional expense is involved to this country owing to the rise in the Treasury Bill rate, both in this year and in the normal year of which he speaks, and whether the House has not a right to pronounce its objection to this extra tax in the interests of the bankers of this country, seeing that it is primarily caused by the increase of the Bank rate proposed by the Bank of England?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend is basing his question on one or two false hypotheses. He assumes, if I rightly understand him, that the rise in the Treasury Bill rate was made in consequence of representations by the Bank.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: By the rise in the Bank rate.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The two things are not the same. The interest of bankers is cheap money. It is a great mistake to suppose that they need dear money in order to make their profits. I anticipated quite as much criticism from joint stock bankers as from anybody else when I raised the Treasury rate. As regards the knowledge which my hon. and gallant Friend asks for, he is proceeding on the assumption that it is possible for fallible human beings to prophesy. If he will tell me how long the high rate will prevail I will tell him the exact cost for that period.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that bankers are the principal buyers of Treasury Bills?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his questions on the Paper.

BILL PRESENTED.

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL,—"to facilitate the provision of land in Ireland for men who have served in the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of the Crown in the present War, and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Solicitor-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. William Coote and Captain Stanley Wilson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Captain Bowyer.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Leader of the House state what will be the business for Thursday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will wait till to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Industrial Courts Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Sir F. BANBURY: How late is it proposed to sit to-night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We wish to get the measure for which the suspension of the Rule is proposed. I hope it will not be very late.

Sir F. BANBURY: Do you mean the whole of it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Industrial Courts Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 33.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Murray, Maj. C. D, (Edinburgh, S.)


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Allen, Colonel William James
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Archdale, Edward M.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Grant, James Augustus
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Baird, John Lawrence
Greame, Major p. Lloyd
Nield, Sir Herbert


Baldwin, Stanley
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H,


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gregory, Holman
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barnston, Major H.
Greig, Colonel James William
Parker, James


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Perring, William George


Betterton, H. B.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles


Blair, Major Reginald
Hanson, Sir Charles
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Borwick, Major G. O.
Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)
Pratt, John William


Bottomley, Horalie
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Breese, Major C. E.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Rae, H. Norman


Buchanan, Lieut. -Colonel A. L. H.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Raeburn, Sir William


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hinds, John
Ramsden, G. T.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Heare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raw, Lieut-Colonel Dr. N.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hood, Joseph
Rees, Sir J. D.


Carr, W. T.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Rowlands, James


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Houston, Robert Paterson
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Howard, Major S. G.
Spret, Colonel Sir Alexander


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Stanley, Col. H. G. F. (Preston)


Clyde, James Avon
Hurd, P. A.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jesson, C.
Sturrock J. Leng-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell, N. P.
Sutherland, Sir William


Cockerill, Brig. -General G. K.
Johnstone, J.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Colvin, Brig. -General R. B.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yh!


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Wallace, J.


Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Lonsdale, James R.
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Wardle, George J.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lynn, R. J.
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Dawes, J. A.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Whitla, Sir William


Dennis, J. W.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Dockrell, Sir M.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Donald, T.
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macleod, John Mackintosh
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Macmaster, Donald
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Edge, Captain William
McMicklng, Major Gilbert
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Young, Lt-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Falcon, Captain M.
Moles, Thomas
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Younger, Sir George


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz



Forestier-Walker, L.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain


Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Murchison, C. K.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, V.
Sitch, C. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Henderson. Rt. Hon. Arthur
Spoor, B. G.


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Briant, F.
Hogge, J. M.
Tootill, Robert


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Waterson, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut. -Commander
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, A. E.



Glanville, Harold James
O'Grady, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Rose, Frank H.
T. Griffiths and Mr. Neil McLean.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL COURTS [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of an Industrial Court and Courts of Inquiry in connection with Trade Disputes, and to continue for a limited period certain of the provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, including the expenses of the Industrial Court and of any Court of Inquiry.
Resolution read a second time.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words, "but such payment shall not exceed the sum of £10,000 in any one year."
I submit that at this moment, when we are spending millions of money, we ought not to commit ourselves to the expenditure of an indefinite sum for salaries to be paid to these various people without imposing some limit by the House upon that expenditure. There has been circulated with this Financial Resolution a Memorandum which says, first, that the Bill provides for the establishment of a Standing Industrial Court, consisting of persons to be appointed by the Ministry of Labour. It describes who they shall be, but there is no limit as to the number to be appointed. It is left entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Labour to decide how many shall be appointed. Then there is to be, apparently, a Court of Inquiry, and all the expenses of this Court are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. Further, it says that the fees and salaries of the members of the Industrial Court and of the Courts—and I beg the House to observe that this word is in the plural— of Inquiry, and also the expenses incidental thereto, such as travelling expenses, the cost of shorthand notes, and so on, will also be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. The Memorandum goes on to say—
The possibility of inserting in the Act itself a fixed sum as a limit for expenditure has been considered.
That is a very desirable thing to consider. It is a pity that the Government did not do more than consider it. They should
have acted upon their first thoughts, which were the best. The Memorandum further says—
It is not practicable to do this in a permanent Act such as the present.
Why is it not practicable? If this were to be a temporary Act, it could only last a short time, and the expenditure would be limited; but, as it is to be a permanent Act, it is all the more reason why the expenditure should be limited. We do not want to commit ourselves permanently to a great increase in expenditure. The Memorandum adds—
particularly having regard to the fact that, as public confidence in the Courts set up under the Act increases—
That rather looks as if the Government did not expect there was going to be much confidence in the Courts which are to be set up—
the work thrown upon the Courts will become greater.
That may be quite true. But what is to prevent the Government coming down to the House and asking for an increase in the expenditure? If a limit is set upon the expenditure, and we presume that the Courts will be a great success in a year or two, and the limit is exceeded or ought to be exceeded, what is to prevent the Government coming down and asking the House to increase the limit which has been already set upon the expenditure? That is the business-like way of doing it, instead of coming down and asking the House for a blank cheque. Only last Thursday week we had a Debate upon expenditure, and we were told that the Government were perfectly alive to the necessity for retrenchment and not adding to our expenditure. Here, almost within live or six days, it is proposed to pay more chairmen and more members of an unlimited number of Courts of Inquiry, and the Government refuses to say what that expenditure is going to be. Instead of seeing any signs that the Government feel they must cut their coat according to their cloth, we find that they are going on spending I money as if the Income Tax were 6d. in the £ and Consols stood at £100. I trust I that hon. Members opposite, and all hon. Members who are really desirous of compelling the Government to be more economical, will put some limit upon this expenditure under this Resolution. It is perfectly easy, when these Courts have been set up and have proved to be a success and more money has to be spent upon them, for the Government to come down and ask
the House to give the money. Then there will be no difficulty about it, but the House ought not to sanction an unlimited expenditure of this sort.

Mr. CLYNES: On behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I desire to say that we acknowledge that some public expenditure is essential if this public work is to be done. The new or transformed machinery to be set up under this Bill will not involve new expenditure, but a continuation of the corresponding expenses already incurred. While we understand that, the Minister of Labour must not conclude that, if we do not resist this Amendment in the Division Lobby, it must be taken as indicating that we agree to the Bill which hereafter is to be generally considered. On this Expenses Resolution I think it desirable to make that plain.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to support the Amendment. What has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) obviously means that the Government is putting the cart before the horse. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if the Labour party do not go into the Division Lobby on this Amendment they must not be taken as agreeing to the Bill. The House will observe that the Labour party's Motion on the Paper proposes to divide the Bill into two parts and to cut out the Industrial Courts portion of it and to deal simply with the other portion which it is necessary to deal with in consequence of the pledges given by the Government. Before we proceed to spend public money on the setting up of the Industrial Courts we ought to know the policy of the Government, and whether they are prepared to go on with the Industrial Courts section of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that question on this Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE: I will reserve my remarks on that for the next Motion. I would only say in support of the Amendment that we are not told how many chairmen are required. If the Resolution is passed in the terms in which the Government have set it down, they can set up an indefinite number of chairmen, and can give each of those chairmen any salary. There is no maximum sum placed upon the salary which will be earned by the chairman of any one of these Industrial Courts. He may get £1,000 or £2,000, or
he may got more or less. In view of the urgency of the public financial situation, the House is entitled to know what the Government has in its mind before we agree to any such Resolution. It is only in the interests of prudence, financial integrity and solvency that the Minister of Labour ought, before he takes the Report stage of this Resolution, to acquaint the House with the number of chairmen ho proposes to set up and the amount of salary they are to get, whether they are to become permanent Civil servants, with rights to pensions, and all that sort of thing; in fact, whether we are setting up the paraphernalia of another Civil Service Department attached to the Ministry of Labour, or whether we are giving the Government carte blanche to do these things. This kind of thing is done in far too slipshod a fashion. These Resolutions-are taken in Committee and on Report with undue haste. It is not the fault of the House that we are forced by the Government to try to give them the Committee stage of this Bill this week. The Government are the arbiters of their own time. They come down and force the House, by a series of Motions of this kind, to agree to any kind of expenditure, because they cannot arrange their time better. They are taking the Committee stage of this Bill to-day, and have already suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule for that purpose, and they are taking the Report stage on Wednesday. One part of the Bill is entirely unnecessary, so far as the Government are concerned. I shall go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment, unless the Government agree to put. in a maximum amount.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir-Robert Home): I do not propose to reply at all to the, remarks which my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hogge) has made of the Governments use of its time. If he were aware of the whole of the circumstances he would readily recognise that the Government was not master of its time in connection with this particular matter. With regard to the Amendment, I confess that I always listened to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), when he talks upon finance, with the greatest possible respect and attention, and sometimes even with awe I have endeavoured during my time in this House to learn as much as I possibly could from his lectures upon his favourite subject. I am free to confess that I took into account the lessons I
learned from him before I proceeded to draw the Financial Resolution in connection with this Bill. I did my best to try to arrive at a lump sum which I might set before the House as the sum which would be required for the expenses of these Courts, but I entirely failed to come to any conclusion upon it. If there be one point about which I am clear, it is that if you cannot make a reasonable estimate and are therefore forced into the realm of guess-work, you always give yourself a very wide margin, and you always give the people who have to work the machine the temptation to extravagance rather than to economy. I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to arrive at any really accurate estimate of what these Industrial Courts would actually cost. The matter is going to be upon a permanent basis. One cannot tell the extent to which they will be resorted to. You have to hope for the best and believe that they will be a complete success, but you are not in a position to estimate, to what extent that success will go. Industrial Courts of Inquiry are a new thing. The House will agree that nobody can say the precise amount we shall have to spend on Courts of Inquiry. The House will have the whole matter completely under its own control.

Mr. HOGGE: Only after the money is spent.

Sir R. HORNE: No. We have a certain amount of money provided by Parliament for the conduct of the Interim Arbitration Court this year. I do not propose to submit any Supplementary Estimate; I propose to work out this year on the amount granted by Parliament for the conduct of the Interim Arbitration Court. The first time the House will have to deal with this matter later will be on the Estimates for the expenses of the Industrial Courts and Courts of Inquiry next year. Then it will have the whole matter completely within its control, and be able to decide whether the amount for which we ask is extravagant or economical. I hope that with this explanation the House will be satisfied with the work we have done.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL COURTS BILL

Order for Committee read.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the establishment of an Industrial Court and Courts of Inquiry in connection with trade disputes, and the other to continue for a limited period certain provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918.
Motions with a similar purpose to that for which I move this one have often appeared on the Order Paper, Such Motions have been designed to interfere with the progress of some particular measure or to obstruct the purpose of the Government and to consume the time of the House with some ulterior object. I assure the House, if any assurance be needed under that head, that no such motive prompts those of us who are putting forward this Motion. We ask for it the earnest and sympathetic consideration of the Minister of Labour. I do not want to revert to the theme of finance, from which we have now passed, but I am sure the House will agree when I say that no energy and no money could be better expended in the public service than the energy and money expended in saving the enormous losses in wages, in profits, in commerce and in trade which arise from industrial disputes. We are as anxious as anyone in this House can be to devise the best possible means for establishing the most conciliatory method that can prevail in order to compose differences which arise in our trades or to prevent them from arising. I am sure that object and purpose has the sympathy of those who take part in labour questions in this House. The Motion is not designed to obstruct. I think I can show it is a constructive proposal deserving of sympathetic attention. We cannot content ourselves with preaching conciliation in the country or appealing to employers and employed to settle by amicable means the differences which arise between them. The best place for conciliation to begin is in this House, and we must have conciliatory methods as well as conciliatory terms if we are going to attain the object we have in view. In other words, these ends are not going to be reached by the Government forcing upon a minority in this House legislation, such as that embodied in this Bill. The Bill may pass. Its passage would not indicate any success in
attaining the object in view It might pass and not be worth the paper on which It is printed. A course must be followed by the Government in this matter which for certain will not merely attract but secure the good will of the trade unionists, without whose good will legislation of this character falls to the ground, no matter how solemnly it may be passed by this House.
We have in the earlier stages of this measure put to the House some general reasons for taking separately these very dissimilar parts of the Bill. There is one urgent need on which there is common agreement. It is the need of making now legislative provision for continuing a state of things which would terminate on 22nd November. It is important to provide now for a situation which would be one of chaos on 21st November if it were not provided for. There is no urgency in respect to the alterations which are proposed in regard to the Courts of Arbitration—I mean there is no outstanding public urgency. I understand that there are certain questions of personal convenience relating to those who have, in a very patriotic and self-sacrificing way, given their time and their services, involving in some instances personal loss in the public interest. There are questions of public convenience and interests of that kind, but there is no outstanding public concern requiring two of the three parts of this Bill. We are anxious that the present law with regard to guaranteed wages should continue, and there will be agreement in all parts of the House, I should hope, as to at least five lines, which are the most important lines in the whole Bill. This urgent matter is to provide for a temporary situation created by the War. It is only a few days ago since those of us who have any responsibility in this House for legislation of this character had an opportunity to consider the matter, and we have been able in a short time to call together small conferences of men representing their executives and councils, but in no sense yet empowered to act for the millions of men who are covered by legislation of this kind, and it is clear that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the case of this very large number. There are hundreds of trade unions concerned in legislation of this character and they represent millions of men few of whom have heard anything about the Bill except what they might have read in the Press,
and fewer of whom have so far been able to convey any instructions either to those who act for them at these conferences or to those of us who sit in this House to deal with industrial and other matters. So it will not do to expect the workers to accept something which practically has to be forced upon them in them way. You I cannot have agreement in industry unless I you practice agreement in the business of; legislation in this House so far as that legislation affects industry, and on that account we regretted that we were driven to oppose in the Lobbies the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. That does not indicate a spirit of good will, a spirit seeking agreement and conciliation in these industrial affars, and you cannot, unless you have such a spirit and pursue your legislation accordingly, attract the good will of the trade unions or in any sense expect them to respond to legislation of this kind. I believe if we in this House assented to a Bill of this kind, and allowed it to pass, with our blessing or without it, our action would immediately be resented outside, and we should very soon be told we had no authority to go so far as in short space of time we are required to do. Trade unions are very slow-moving bodies. They must assemble in their brandies and in their districts. They must have meetings, one instructing another to give authority which finally filters through to some few men who are empowered to speak or to act for them. But on this most important matter, proposing a new and permanent feature in respect to conciliation, in respect to arbitration, in respect to inquiry, in respect to penalties—on these matters the rank and file of the trade unions have had no opportunity whatever of making known their feeling, and it surely is not in the interest of harmony in trades and industries that measures of this kind should be forced upon them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept literally the terms of this Amendment, but we very seriously suggest that it is essential to do so, and should he see his way to meet us he can depend at least upon our good will and co-operation with regard to the two objects of machinery for inquiry and machinery for arbitration.
I was among those who in the earlier stages of the War did what we could to persuade the rank and file of the workers as to the national necessity on that occa-
sion for accepting both the principle and the practice of arbitration for all disputes of every kind, at least while the War was on. I see no reason why the working classes generally should not consider arbitration as to them a less costly and wasteful process for settling differences than the weapon of the strike, which so frequently has to be used. But we cannot teach the workers the lesson of arbitration, and mould their minds in that direction, by now forcing upon them what will appear to many of them, although literally it is not, to be forcing upon them a form of compulsory arbitration. I know there is a good deal of freedom in it, but when it is coupled with the process and procedure of inquiry, there are elements of compulsion which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to explain away. On the urgent matter we are agreed. We want to provide for 21st November. On these two other matters issues are raised which as yet we have had no time to consider, and if the right hon. Gentleman is assured of the good will and co-operation which I can extend to him, I trust he will be able to see his way not now to compel us to deal with legislation for which we have no authority whatever from a large number of men whom we claim to represent.

Major HILLS: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) always speaks with such reasoned force, and carries such weight in this House that when I differ from him I do so with great reluctance. Still, on this point I am quite clear that I differ. I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Horne) will not divide the Bill into two parts, and I hope the Bill will be carried. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) gave two main reasons why the Bill should be divided, and he made his own view quite clear. He wishes the part concerning wages to be passed at once, and that which concerns arbitration and inquiry to be postponed to the distant future, and if I do not misinterpret him, not to be passed at all. He gave two reasons why he wished the Bill divided. The first was that there was no urgency for passing legislation for arbitration. The case for arbitration, however, is very urgent, and the right horn. Gentleman himself has played so distinguished a part in many arbitrations that I was surprised to hear him say
there is no urgency for it. I quite agree that the urgency is not of the same instant character as it is for the Wage Bill, but still who can view without dismay the prospect of a disturbed time in trade and no machinery for arbitration? I think the Government would not have done its duty unless they had at the first possible moment started machinery for arbitration. So much for urgency.
I come now to the second point. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government were forcing this legislation on a minority, and he claimed the right for all those whom he represents to be consulted, and to express their opinion before the Clauses concerning arbitration and inquiry are passed. First of all, he says the Government are forcing compulsion on the trade unionists. I have read the Bill with some care, and I see no compulsion at all in it. If the right hon. Gentleman sees any vestige or trace or taint of compulsion I will join with him in trying to eliminate it. It is purely a voluntary Bill, and no-one need use the Arbitration Court unless he wishes to. But does not this doctrine, that we have to wait till special bodies of opinion—large and important bodies I agree—are consulted, depend on the reasonableness of the legislation? If this were something entirely new and distasteful to large sections of the community they ought to be consulted, but voluntary arbitration has been before the community for years past, and the right hen. Gentleman himself has taken a very prominent part, in that discussion. I do not think it could be claimed that this is a new subject sprung suddenly on the country. The large majority of people who have been interested in settling disputes have looked upon arbitration as the first and final remedy. They do not regard it as a great step up to compulsion. I regard the voluntary system as the best and the final system, and I do hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Instruction, but that the House will insist on carrying the whole Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: I should always desire to meet any request of my right hon. Friend opposite, because, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Hills) has just said, he always puts forward his plea in the most moderate and most reasonable fashion. I should be particularly responsive to what he asks this afternoon, because he puts it upon the necessity of obtaining good will for the working of this measure. There is nobody who realises
more fully than I do the necessity of that good will as foundation of the success of the measure, but the sacrifice which my right hon. Friend asks me to make is too great, for this reason, that it involves disaster to the Bill itself. He asks that we continue the stabilisation of wages. He seems to think that that requires nothing more than Part III, of this Bill, but I would remind him that he would not get stabilisation of wages at the present time without modifications and amendments in the provisions of the Interim Regulation Act. It is true that the employers agreed to the continuance of the Interim Act, but it was upon condition that the one-sided character of that Act was elminated and the trade unions and the employers' associations were put upon the same basis. To that extent, at least, it was necessary that the provisions of the Act should be modified. That is not all You cannot stabilise wages and you cannot say that no man shall be paid less than a prescribed rate unless you have a tribunal in existence which can say what the prescribed rate is, and in cases where a wage has been substituted, what the substituted rate is. Therefore you do require a Court of some sort. He says that we should continue the Court we have. I have had the greatest possible difficulty during the last six months in continuing the Court we had. It was admittedly an Interim Court. It was to last until May of the present year. It contained a body of people who gave their services during the War and who, realising the condition in which we were after hostilities had ceased, were anxious to serve their country still further if the opportunity were given. But it is no longer possible to get that service. It is only by persistent persuasion that I have succeeded in keeping that Court together during that period, and it was plain that we had either to get a permanent Court set up at the present time or to forego altogether an institution which has rendered during all these troublous times the very greatest possible service to the country.
The point is put forward by my right hon. Friend as if we were proposing something that is quite new in respect of this Industrial Court. The idea is not at all novel. We have all been talking, about voluntary arbitration for years. At least, we have had three years of voluntary arbitration, and it is impossible to say that the organised working classes of this country do not realise what voluntary arbitration
is, and what a Court of voluntary arbitration means, because nearly all the trades of this country have some time or other at some period been before that Court. Not only is it not novel, but I am the merest plagiarist in what I am proposing in this Bill. I find in a document which has been quoted, canvassed, and discussed in every trade organisation in the country this sentence:
For these reasons it would appear desirable that there should be a Standing Arbitration Council on the lines of the present temporary Committee on Production, to which differences of general principles and differences affecting whole industries or large sections of industries may be referred, in cases where the parties have failed to come to an agreement through their ordinary procedure, and wish to refer the differences to arbitration.
That Report was written and published on the 31st January, 1918. It has been before the country all that time, and when I look through the distinguished signatories of that document I find the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). It is the Whitley Report. There is no document of more world-wide fame than that Report, and in proposing to set up a permanent Industrial Court I am doing nothing more than following the recommendation which was made by the gentleman who signed that Report. What about the Court of Inquiry? The subject of the Court of Inquiry was also before that same Committee, who reported upon it in equally favourable terms. The Report says:
We suggest that the Ministry of Labour should be authorised to hold a full inquiry when satisfied that it was desirable, without prejudice to the power of the disputing parties to declare a strike or lockout before or during the progress of the inquiry.
They conclude their Report by saying:
Where the parties are unable to adjust their differences, we think that there should be means by which an independent inquiry may be made into the facts and circumstances of a dispute, and an authoritative pronouncement made thereon, though we do not think there should be any compulsory power of delaying strikes and lockouts.
That is exactly what you find in this Bill, and I do not think so badly of my right hon. Friend to imagine that there is a single labour organisation in this country which does not read with the greatest care every pronouncement he makes. There is only one other matter to which I need refer. My right hon. Friend talks of the difficulty of getting the support of the various organisations which are represented in this House. It is a somewhat
new doctrine with regard to every form of legislation that you must necessarily have your constitutents canvassed before you can give an opinion. It would be foolish for any Member of this House to put forward such a plea for delaying legislation that he had to take the opinion of his constituents, and it is particularly foolish on the part of gentlemen who represent the Labour party in this House, because they have a form of organisation to which there is nothing comparable in the country. My right hon. Friend says, "We have no authority to agree even to such a minor measure as this." I see sitting beside my right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who can exercise authority, without consultation with anybody, over the whole country.

Mr. THOMAS: Do you envy me?

Sir R. HORNE: At least I say this, that gentlemen who are in a position to exercise authority with so complete command of their followers have no need to complain that proposals which have been before the country for so long require to be still further canvassed among their constituents before they can agree to them. I regret that I am not in a position to meet my right hon. Friend's request, and I have sufficient confidence in his good will to believe that I shall not lose it by the course I have taken.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I think I shall be doing the Minister of Labour no injustice if I say that he has replied to my right hon. Friend on an entirely false assumption. He appeared all through his speech to assume that my right hon. Friend is opposed to the principle of the Bill. That is not so. I think the same assumption was made by the hon. Member for Durham (Major Hills). What we object to is the method which has been adopted in associating in the same form legislation which has not been sought for, to my knowledge, by either the employers or the trade unionists. During the long inquiries that were held at the opening of the present year, by the Joint Committee of employers and trade union representatives, by the Committee appointed at the first Industrial Conference, over which my right hon. Friend presided, I do not remember during the whole inquiry that the form of arbitration referred to in this Bill —which, if I may say so, is being rushed through this House at a speed altogether
unwarranted—was sought for by either parties to the Conference or to the Joint Committee. What did the trade unionists ask for? They approached the Minister of Labour and suggested that there should be a further extension of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act. It does not seem to occur to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham that if the request of these trade unions had been granted, and the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act had been extended for the further period, a form of arbitration would have remained, for under that Act, as he must know, there is a Court of Arbitration working, and as it has worked since the passing of the Act, so it would have continued to work under the extension of the Act. He seemed to have the idea that we were rejecting altogether voluntary arbitration. We asked for it in the form in which it has been in operation.

Major HILLS: I quite agree that there is a system of arbitration contained in the Wages Regulation Act, but that arbitration is very limited, and is concerned entirely with one thing—rates of wages.

5.0 p.m.

MR. HENDERSON: I do not know whether my hon. Friend would admit that he was seeking arbitration in his Bill for anything more than the readjustment of wages differences. I should be pleased to hear, when he makes a further speech, that he is trying to carry arbitration much beyond the scope provided for in the Act to which I have referred. It appears to us that if the Industrial Conference which was charged with going into the question of unrest, representing as it did the whole of the employers and practically the whole of the trade unions, made no appeal for this form of legislation, and if it is to be passed, it should be passed when the subject has received the fullest and the most careful consideration. I presided the other day over a conference hurriedly called at which many of the larger unions were not able to have their representatives owing to the conditions in which the conference was summoned, and they were positively hostile to certain of the Clauses of this Bill, and asked for time in order that they might consult their constituents, meaning the trade unionists. I know that it may be suggested from the other side that we will go too far if we hold up legislation until the whole of the trade unions have been consulted.
In view of the experience which we have had during the past six or eight months and the tremendous amount of unrest that has existed, surely in a matter which so vitally affects the trade unions there should be consultation. As my right hon. Friend knows, when this Bill was first brought to their notice it contained one Clause which so aroused the suspicions of the whole trade union movement of this country that it created an atmosphere altogether foreign to the securing of proper consideration for even voluntary, much less compulsory, arbitration. And so with our desire to assist the Government and my right hon. Friend, we come along and say, "Divide your Bill. Let us extend the Wages Temporary Regulation Act, but as to these Courts of Arbitration, let us go into the question of arbitration on wider and broader lines with plenty of time to meet the difficulties of the trade unions." I have no hesitation in saying that if that were done, agreement could be reached. From a very long experience of trade union leaders of this country I believe that the overwhelming majority of members and trade unionists are as anxious as could be any Members of this House to set up such conditions as will secure industrial peace. It is an altogether mistaken idea to think that the trade unionists of this country are anxious for trouble, as is so often charged against them.
I was sorry that my right hon. Friend could not respond to the appeal of the Mover of the Resolution, but I ask him, if he cannot give us all that we have asked for, to say, "I will postpone putting into operation this proposal of Courts for a while. Let us have a further investigation and take time to see whether you cannot by mutual agreement set up some Courts of Inquiry" If that were done I believe that some agreement would eventually be reached that would be mutually satisfactory. But to try to enforce it now, when the suspicion has been created that there is an attempt to take away the foundations upon which trade union law rests, when they think that you have not entirely removed the attempt by Clause 3 of the first Bill to destroy the Trades Disputes Act, is, I think, to create an atmosphere the most unfavourable to what is desirable in the interests of both employers and employed. So I appeal to my right hon Friend to consider even now whether he will not suspend putting into operation the
new Courts of Inquiry, and be content with an inquiry such as there was under the Wages Temporary Regulation Act with its Courts of Arbitration, and if that were done, and time were given, I have no doubt that he would be able to get from the trade unions that which will serve his purpose.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has suggested to the Minister of Labour a way out of the difficulty. I trust sincerely that he will consider carefully the suggestion that has been made of dropping meanwhile that portion of the Bill which deals with Courts of Inquiry. On the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke against Courts of Inquiry because I think that they are unduly provocative. I think that they introduce into this Bill an clement that is likely to cause trouble and militate against the smooth working of the parts of the Bill with which everyone will certainly agree. And if the right hon. Gentleman only carries through the House that portion which provides for a continuation of the Wages Regulation Act and leaves for further consideration the question of Courts of Inquiry, I believe that it would be in the interests of the industries of this country and of employers and employed. I speak on this question as an employer of labour who has had a great deal to do with the Labour movement throughout the country, and especially in reference to the question of grievances as between Labour and Capital. I do feel that the way in which these Courts are established is throwing down an apple of discord. Both sides are required to be heard and Reports have to be made, but this carries matters no further. If there had been associated with the proposals a compulsion, on all parties to attend and submit to compulsory arbitration, I could quite understand the necessity for Courts of Inquiry. But when you have dropped compulsion and are going to rely upon conciliation, as the Industrial Courts under this Bill provide for, then I do not see the object of this proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman might go, a little further with regard to the Industrial Courts. These Industrial Courts are to be set up to provide machinery for both parties to come together to a conference and to take advantage of it. They come without compulsion, but if the Industrial Courts were to investigate the whole case and had power to make full inquiry without threat-
ening pains and penalties they could come to a satisfactory conclusion. If its proceedings are made public the public will ascertain what the facts are and where the difference has arisen. But if you add to the Industrial Courts the provisions as to these Courts of Inquiry with all those Clauses as to proposed penalties, it will vitiate the whole proceedings of this Bill. It will be quite sufficient if the Industrial Courts have power to call for documents. If the parties come forward in the Court and agree to submit their cases to it there is no objection to this suggestion. But do not introduce these Courts of Inquiry, which I am perfectly satisfied will destroy the whole value of the Bill, and I would appeal to the Minister in charge to concentrate on the Industrial Courts alone.

Mr. THOMAS: I want to associate myself with the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson). I do not think that the Minister in charge of this Bill will lose anything in accepting the proposal we make. There is a mistaken idea abroad that Labour leaders themselves are the persons who desire strikes. I may appear to be somewhat in a difficult position, having regard to recent events, but I can only observe this, that anyone who had to undertake the responsibility of a strike would know perfectly well that it is not quite such an easy task that he would welcome it. But I want to put this point to my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly true that Parliament has no right to say that we must have the consent of every section of the people to particular legislation that we believe necessary in the interests of the community. In that connection I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister is on safe ground. But he knows perfectly well that the request that we are now making is only a request that is carried out in practice in every Bill that is introduced.
My right hon. Friend would admit at once that if a Bill was introduced into this House affecting financial matters the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at once get up and say that he had consulted the financial interests in the City and had got their agreement. More than once the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted from that Box in justification and in defence of his proposals that he has secured agreement with the financial in-
terests in the City. Those of us who remember the Insurance Act going through this House know perfectly well that there was no phase of that Bill which was not discussed with, and in the main agreed to, by the interests involved, long before the particular Amendments came before the House. And the House ought to keep clearly in mind that mere lip service in this House is valueless. If every Member on these benches agreed to a proposal and that proposal was turned down by the unions that we represent, we would not have served it further or helped the Ministry by any support we might give in this House, and I think it far better, however unpopular it may appear, and however unpalatable it may be for the moment, for Members only to give support to proposals as to which they believe they can carry their members with them rather than lead the House to believe that they can support something that will afterwards be repudiated by the members concerned.
After all, we are dealing in this matter with a measure which, unless it carries the goodwill and acceptance of the trade union, movement of the country, is absolutely valueless. Do not let us play with that. If this House carries this unanimously and the Labour movement decide to-morrow that they will not have it, what becomes of it? You have got to see that hard fact. If, for instance, this Bill were made to apply to the pay of women and we say we will not have it, how are you going to compel us to have it? Alternatively the same thing applies to the employers, if the employers say "no," as some employers, have said. It is known that we have had disputes in this country for three months where, although the men have agreed to arbitration, the employers have refused, and the Minister of Labour has been compelled to say from his place in this House, and in private conversation, "I have dons all I could to persuade the employers and the employers disagree. There is no Act of Parliament which compels." I believe there is an opportunity now, in spite of what is said about industrial unrest, to set up machinery that will enable the fullest inquiry to be made before a strike is resorted to. I believe that that machinery is necessary, but I submit also that if the machinery is going to be effective it must carry with it the good will and the co-operation of both sides.
What are the facts in regard to this Bill? A request was made for the continuance
of what is called stabilisation of wages. The Prime Minister himself, in the first meeting with the trade unionists following the Armistice, clearly indicated to them that, in his judgment, it would be unwise not to continue the War wage. That was the Prime Minister's own statement, and that was the first step in what is called the Wages Regulation Bill. There was a request made to continue that, so that the rest of the organised workers would come into line with the railwayman, whose wages are stabilised until September of next year. But in the proposal we are now considering the Government goes beyond that, and says, "Yes, we agree to those provisions, but we want them accompanied by certain other terms and conditions." I put it to the House that that fact in itself must create a suspicion in the minds of the men. It is no good to burke it. They never requested any new machinery. Incidentally, there is machinery in operation to-day that provides for conciliation and arbitration, and its adoption is open to any trade union or body of organised workers, as it is open to the employers. The request we make is that you separate this Bill. We request that, not because we are going to oppose the second part of the Bill. Do not make any mistake about that. There will be no opposition to the second part of the Bill, though there will certainly be Amendments proposed. We believe that our proposal will strengthen the Government's position. We believe that it will be accepted in a better spirit, and that it is preferable to the Government going forward and saying, "The only terms upon which wages are stabilised until September next year are terms that we insist upon in the introduction of new machinery." The hon. and gallant Member for Durham in his support of the Labour Minister's position made a statement, the meaning of which I am quite sure he could not be aware of. He suggested that if our Motion is carried all efforts at arbitration and conciliation are wiped out.

Major HILLS: For this Session.

Mr. THOMAS: I will give the illustration of an award last week. A fortnight ago the whole of the engineering trades appeared before the Arbitration Court with an application for 15s. per week. We believed that it was a justifiable application, and that we could prove that it was a fair amount. We stated our case, giving
facts and figures. On Thursday last the award was issued. It gave, not 15s. but a third of 15s., that is 5s. What was the action of the trade unions? They did not resent the verdict. They felt that the award ought to have been more, and that their case had been unfairly dealt with; but they acted honourably to the agreement, and every one of us who was involved immediately urged the acceptance of the award, although we felt it was not an award warranted by the circumstances. Incidentally that Court is now in operation, and if this Bill is separated, as we suggest, there is nothing whatever to prevent that tribunal going on independently of the Bill. The second point is this, that independent of that Court there is also a panel that can be appealed to. My right hon. Friend (Sir B. Home) will not deny that, apart from the engineering trades, any union, any body of employers or employés, can make application to him to-day and arbitrators can be appointed to consider any case in dispute. That proves conclusively that in the Motion that we are now submitting we are not taking away the powers of conciliation or arbitration that are already in existence. I believe the real method of conciliation or arbitration must be by agreement with the unions. It is no secret that the miners and the railway-men, who are outside the pale of this Bill, are suggesting their own method and machinery. We believe that if the employers and ourselves can agree upon some tribunal, that tribunal will have a fat-better chance of success than would a tribunal which is forced upon us, to which neither of us agrees. Conciliation can succeed only if the machinery is accepted by both sides. Arbitration can be successful only if both sides have confidence in the Arbitration Courts. No amount of legislation can establish that. In other words, it is good will amongst those concerned that is wanted. I hope the Minister of Labour has not said the last word; if so, it will be unfortunate for his Bill. It will be unfortunate for the success of this new scheme if we are compelled to go into the Lobby against it, because—it is no use disguising the fact—our dividing against this proposal will mean that a very large number of people in the country will mistrust the scheme. They will say that it has been rushed through, and that there was no need to rush it through. I hope the right hon.
Gentleman will agree to separate the Bill. That will at least show to the workers that the Government are not enxious to rush the Bill and are not making a bargain in stabilising wages at the expense of interference with trade unions.

Major GREAME: I feel that the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's very interesting speech was a more or less complete answer to the first part. I hope the Minister of Labour will persist in his attitude and not separate the two parts of the Bill. I would appeal to the House, in considering whether or not it is going to support the Government, to pay rather more attention to what the Bill does and rather less attention to what, from some of the speeches, one hears about it. It has been said that something is going to be forced upon the employés. There is from beginning to end not a single word of compulsion in the Bill. No employer and no workman need go to this Court of Arbitration unless he likes, nor are its awards made compulsorily binding. Under these circumstances it is perfectly idle to talk about compulsion. There is, however, the possibility of confirming and continuing a voluntary form of arbitration which, as speaker after speaker from the Labour benches has said, has been extraordinarily effective in the past. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) gave us a very forcible example when he cited the arbitration last week in the engineering industry. By giving that illustration does he not give the very best example in the world to prove that this system of arbitration is both understood and practised already in all the great trade unions of the country? There are, it seems to me, two considerations of a more general character which have been overlooked. The first is this. I was extremely sorry to hear the suggestion put forward that Members of this House were to treat themselves as delegates and not as representatives. The hon. Members who put that argument forward are not slow on many occasions to say without hesitation that they speak for the whole of the Labour world. I am looking far beyond the immediate purpose or compass of this Bill. If there is one thing that is necessary now, it is to restore the prestige of Parliament as Parliament. You will never restore that prestige if Members are considered as delegates and not as representatives who exercise their own discretion. There is another argu-
ment I wish to advance. A number of speeches made on this Bill have conveyed the suggestion that it is a matter which concerns merely, two parties to industrial disputes—the employers on the one side and the employés on the other. That is a wholly wrong way of looking at this Bill. There is always a third party to disputes, a third party which stands to suffer by every dispute, and a party whose duty it is to know the inside and have a knowledge of every industrial dispute. That third party consists of the general public of this country. I am quite sure that the general public are looking to us in this Bill to give them an opportunity of coming in. If this Bill were divided, there would not be Parliamentary time to carry the provisions dealing with arbitration and Courts of Inquiry, and we would have lost an opportunity which the public; are looking to us to seize. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his decision.

Captain O'GRADY: The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to the question of the general public and industrial disputes. I am not going to speak about the recent railway strike except to say that when the history of that comes to be written it will have a different complexion from that which is now put upon it by some people. The separation of this Bill will in no degree either lessen or prevent Arbitration Courts which are already operating. In only one instance has an award of the Court been resisted, and I think it is correct to say that forty-eight out of forty-nine or fifty trade unions have kept the terms of the awards since the War started. We got an award the other day of 5s. where 15s. was asked. I represent a federation of 1,250,000 people who are involved in these awards, and I am perfectly certain that the award I have mentioned, as far as my information goes, will be operative for the next four months. The House must remember you cannot get people to go to Courts of Arbitration by compulsion, and I venture to say that the overwhelming majority of the employers' federation of this country will refuse to g" to Courts of Arbitration under any form of compulsion. During the War the federation got an agreement signed and sealed between themselves and the employers with regard to observing wages awards for a period of four months, and that agreement has not been contravened except in. one instance. In the two hearings prior to the last October hearing we claimed an
increase and were turned down, no one knows why except the Court, but we never questioned the Court's decision. Protests were sent up from some of the unions, but the executive committee said, "We have entered into a compact, we have gone into this Court willingly," and although we were turned down, yet for six months in a very trying time, with one exception, that of the ironfounders, the agreement was observed.
Let me tell the House quite frankly, and I beg of the House to accept what I say, that you have got to rely upon the honour and integrity of the unions themselves, and if you do that you will get our people to go to the Courts much more willingly than under compulsion. In fact, they will not go by compulsion. You can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no compulsion in the Bill!"] The first portion of the Bill accedes to the request of the unions to continue the Wages Temporary Regulation Act. That Act was the means of settling differences, and the unions want to continue the course adopted during war-time in this time of transition. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that I am giving no confidence away when I say that the great bulk of the employers of the country objected to the extension of the Act on the ground that if cost of foodstuffs came down stabilisation ought not to exist. They rejected the proposal in the first place, but I think by common agreement employers and employed recognise that the first portion of this Bill is essential. An hon. Gentleman said just now that there was no compulsion in this Bill. I would ask him to look at the second Clause, and I would put him the question, Will the Employers' Federation, under the terms of this Bill, produce all documents to the Court of Inquiry?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid the whole course of the De-babe is tending to a review of the Bill, which is quite beyond the scope of the Motion before the House, which is to divide the Bill into two parts.

Captain O'GRADY: I would ask the House to quite appreciate our position. We are always in favour of arbitration. I have said over and over again upon platforms to our members wherever there is an industrial dispute it is because of absolute lack of reason somewhere. Therefore, following that line, I am in favour of
conciliation and arbitration. I think it is an extremely foolish thing that there should be lock-outs or strikes since, as I say, they must be due to lack of reason somewhere. We are absolutely in favour of conciliation and arbitration and much closer co-operation between Capital and Labour. There are common grounds of mutual interest which in my judgment ought to avoid disputes. When that is said, do not let us go out of our way to erect by Statute something that will interfere with the good relations which have existed since 1914, and which continue to exist. I venture to say to the Minister of Labour that it will be better for him to set more reliance on the Industrial Councils which have been set up than on a Bill of this character. The right hon. Gentleman knows, perhaps better than most Members, that the Industrial Councils have done a great deal of good, if you like, in rubbing off the angularities of this people concerned. I beg of the House to have regard to the good feeling which is growing and developing under the Industrial Councils, and to accept the Amendment.

Sir R. HORNE: By leave of the House, may I say I do not share for a moment the vaticinations of my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite as to what will occur if this Bill be passed? I am perfectly certain that the working classes have got a great deal more intelligence, than to believe that this Bill carries compulsion anywhere, or that the Industrial Court about to be set up is something very different from that to which they have been accustomed. I am confident also, if any suspicion of that kind does exist in their minds, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are perfectly adequate and competent to clearing that suspicion completely away. It only requires an explanation of the terms of this simple Bill to bring it home to the mind of everybody. You have got here a Bill which, with Amendments which are down on the Paper, will give everybody in this country a voluntary opportunity, and only a voluntary opportunity, of clearing up those elements of difference which the last hon. Gentleman who spoke has referred to and deprecated. So far for the Industrial Courts. As to the Court of Inquiry, nothing is more familiar to the public mind at the present time than the demand upon the part of the whole Press of the country and the great bulk of the population for some knowledge on the part of
the country of the issues at stake before the parties come to any violent action. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said in his speech that he regarded the setting up of a Court of Inquiry as the best part of the Bill, and I am perfectly certain it is so regarded by a very large number of our citizens. Accordingly, I regret, as I have already said, that I cannot meet the request which has been put to me from the Benches opposite, and I am perfectly certain that no trouble or difficulty need follow upon that refusal if really we all have the desire which everybody has expressed to come to an end of the causes of difference.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has really not touched the point of this Amendment at all. In your ruling, Sir, you pointed out that the Motion before the House is not on the merits of the Bill, but on whether the two parts of the Bill necessarily go together. I submit that whether the Industrial Court be a good thing or whether the Court of inquiry is a good thing is not the question before the House. I agree cordially with my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) as to the merits of these Courts, but the question we are discussing now is whether the two parts of the Bill necessarily go together. One part says that Industrial Courts shall be set up, and the second part says that wages shall be stabilised for a further year. The question is, Are those two propositions so germane that they cannot be separated, and are they both so urgent that we must take them at once? I submit that the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) is complete. It is the fact that the stabilisation of wages is urgent, because the Act terminates on the 21st November, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman says that we should take that part of the Bill now; but as to the other question, we desire to have more time to express our opinion and wider opportunities of consulting the interests concerned. It is useless to attempt to force a measure on the trade unions if they do not want it. You may lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink, and in forcing this Bill through the Minister would only be beating the air if the trade unions have not had an opportunity of considering it. On those grounds I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion before the House.

Lord R. CECIL: One word in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. Surely he, in his experience, knows quite well, however plausible the argument he has used, it is quite unsound. He knows that if we divide this Bill and postpone the part dealing with Courts of Inquiry and Arbitration, it means that that part of the Bill is dead for this Session, in view of the immense pressure on the Government time that there already is. I feel perfectly certain that that part of the Bill would be lost. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is no use forcing arbitration on the trade unions. I agree, but this Bill does not force arbitration on the trade unions. It proposes a particular kind of arbitration for their acceptance; they need not accept it unless they like. That is the whole of the arbitration part. I attach much greater importance, and I would not have intervened except to say it, to the Court of Inquiry. I am one of the third parties to these disputes. I am neither an employer nor a working man, nor is my hon. Friend opposite, but our interest in these matters is enormous, and in some respects it is greater than that of either of the direct parties, because we are a far more numerous body, and to my mind the Court of Inquiry, or something of that kind, is really vital. I venture to appeal to my hon. and right 'hon. Friends opposite, is it not true that nine-tenths of these industrial disputes arise out of misunderstanding, because the two parties do not understand one another, and still more because the general public is quite in the dark as to what the real rights of the dispute are? We have set up a League of Nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not yet!"] Well, we have done our best, and I am sure, if my hon. Friend has his will and if I have my will, we will spend our last strength in securing an efficient League of Nations. But what is the machinery? The whole theory of the machinery is that we shall have an inquiry so as to allow public opinion to know really what are the rights of the dispute between the parties. Is not the analogy perfect; is not that really what we want—light, more light, publicity, more publicity? That is the real way to avoid misunderstanding, and I venture to appeal to my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite not to do anything which will imperil the execution of this really admirable experiment to try and remove in an authoritative way the cause
of all disputes, namely, the misunderstanding between the parties and ignorance of public opinion, which is unable therefore to exercise its full weight on the side of justice, whichever it may be.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the House once more that it is a little beyond the scope of the present Motion to discuss the merits of the three parts of the Bill.

Mr. HODGE: There appears to me to be an impression that in the Motion which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting only trade unionists are seeking for this, but that is not so. The employers of labour are equally alarmed with the workmen. The Minister of Labour received this morning a deputation asking that so far as the great iron and steel trades are concerned they shall be absolutely excluded from the operation of this Bill. The Noble Lord need not be afraid; if the House agreed to divide the Bill, and that part dealing with the Industrial Courts did not go on, there are still Arbitration Courts in existence under the old Conciliation and Arbitration Acts. There is no Member of this House who will charge me with being opposed to industrial arbitration, because in the iron and steel industry for sixty years conciliation and arbitration have been tested and tried with great success, so much so that the employers to-day were before the Minister of Labour expressing to him their dread of the passing of this Bill in its present form as endangering the record that they have, so far as that particular trade is concerned, built up. I ask that this Bill should be divided because of the fact that no one has had any opportunity of really considering its provisions and coming to a real understanding as to what the effects of the Bill are going to be. If you are going to have to stabilised Court of Arbitration, it will never give satisfaction, but under the present system, where both sides can select their own umpire with an independent chairman, when the award is made it is accepted. In the iron and steel industry during the whole sixty years' experience neither the workmen nor the employers have ever kicked against an award. I think that is a record to be proud of, hence the reason why they are afraid of this Bill and ask that it should be divided, the Industrial Court not to be gone on with until the trade as a whole has had an opportunity of really consider-
ing the problem. May I say that in that demand the employers and the workmen in that industry are absolutely at one, and I hope in the light of that experience the House will bring some pressure to bear upon the Minister of Labour to accede to the Resolution to divide the Bill. May I add one other reason why the Bill should be divided? During the whole period of the War, as the result of the machinery in that industry, there never was a stoppage of work. The employers, as I have said, ask that the Conciliation Acts as they exist to-day should not be tampered or interfered with, and they pressed upon the Minister of Labour their point of view this morning. I hope, therefore, that even yet the Minister of Labour will reconsider the attitude he has taken up, and will split the Bill as has been suggested, giving the employers as much as the workmen the opportunity of considering this problem, because the Bill has been brought forward with such undue haste that neither the associations of employers nor the associations of workmen have had any real opportunity of considering its merits.

Mr. JESSON: I want to support this Motion, and I do not want to give a silent vote. I regret that the Minister of Labour cannot see his way to accept it, as I look at it from this point of view. I am a trade union official of thirty years' standing, and I have been in a good many disputes in my time. They have caused a serious amount of suffering on everybody concerned, and I am most anxious to do everything I possibly can to remove those disputes by substituting arbitration wherever possible, but I am up against this particular fact: For over a hundred years we have had this conflict between Capital and Labour, and we are not going to wipe that out in five minutes. My next point is that we have already got set up a large number of Whitley Councils that have been set up voluntarily. That good work is still going along. In addition to that, we have other conciliation boards that have not adopted the Whitley Council machinery at all, but machinery entirely of their own, and therefore the only industries concerned are those industries which have not yet come together with regard to establishing machinery for conciliation, and as far as they are concerned I think the Bill should go on, because you get disputes occasionally in which not only a few hundred thousand trade
unionists, but the whole of the people in the country are concerned, and it is only right and fair that those people who are concerned, and who at the same time have no voice in the dispute at all, except that they have to put up with the suffering, should know what is the real cause of the dispute. It seems to me that we cannot force this Bill upon the good wishes of the trade union movement of this country. We have got to get their practical sympathy and support for it, and I believe that with what is already at work, coupled with the proposal that we should split this Bill—although I do not agree with postponing either part of it—but if we can divide it for the time being and take the part relating to the stabilising of wages first and the other part afterwards we shall do more to gain the goodwill of the people most concerned, that is, the trade unionists of this country, than anything else. I therefore desire to express my approval of this Motion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. IRVING: I want to ask the House to agree to this Motion, whatever the Minister of Labour may think about it. Do not let us treat this subject as we have undoubtedly treated too many since I have been in this House, like an afternoon debate in a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon, one side merely trying to get the better of the other. Let us try to come to the realities of the situation. I, like the Noble Lord opposite (Lord E. Cecil), am one of the third parties, inasmuch as I am neither employer nor workman at the present time, and although in material matters his stake may be greater in the issue than mine, after all, all that I have is at stake, and that is all that any other Member of this House can claim to have. We have come through a world-wide cataclsym, about the ultimate issue of which I had very little doubt at the commencement. But, since the signing of the Armistice, I have been filled with apprehension as to how we are to get through the after-war conditions, and build up a stable system in which peace and the opportunities of a livelihood shall be offered to all the people, of this community and not merely to a part. This apprehension is not based upon any other knowledge than what I have of the working-class movement, extending certainly over forty years. I would urge those who have refused to agree to the suggestion we have made to consider that
aspect of the proposal. No one has yet even attempted to controvert the statement that we made, that the passing of this Bill is not urgently required merely for the purpose of carrying on, at any rate for a time, arbitration and conciliation methods, and until yon can controvert that statement, it is idle to pretend there is any urgency at all. There is not. Then I would ask those who want to make speed, in what position they are going to be if they come up against the organised trade union movement which to-day in this country is stronger than ever it was before, and that is only preparatory to it being yet stronger still. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it a sufficient reply to hurl the serio-comic flattery at this Bench that we, or those more particularly responsible, have only to go to the Constituents to explain matters to them, and to put everything right? Such a response to the request that has been made to him is unworthy of the position he holds. One of the leading newspapers I was reading yesterday pointed out the basis upon which a large amount of suspicion in the trade union movement would inevitably arise if this Bill were forced through with the indecent haste which is being attempted, and cited what all of us remember, that all those things were said in time of war with regard to the National Registration Bill, and that all the arguments put up against that proposal, upon the score that it would lead to Conscription in its turn, were urged as being arguments to which no consideration ought to be given. Whether one came as a consequence of the other does not matter. The one preceded and the other followed, pretty much as the night follows day, with very little interruption between.
If you refuse to comply with the reasonable request that if Courts of Inquiry and Arbitration, even for voluntary purposes, are to be set up, the employers on the one side and the workers upon the other ought to have been taken into consideration, and such measure of agreement as is possible should have been arrived at before this measure was brought before this House at all, I submit that if you want not speed but delay at best, and the absolute overthrow of your intentions at the worst, the-procedure by which you are attempting to force this House and the servile majority at the Government's command—It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but those who have sat here have seen it. I have seen with my own eyes many a man
who has gone back on principles I have known him to express for a long time, merely because he has the dog-collar of the Government's recognition upon him. I want hon. Members to consider this calmly, and perhaps much more calmly than I can feel at the present time, because these things are to me vital. I have gone through the mill of the working class too long and suffered in my own family too much, now that the time has come to close the issues between us, not to recognise that we are not here for a mere Debate, but for a settlement—an honourable, decent, and, if possible, peaceful settlement, satisfactory as far as possible to both sides. You may pass this measure to-night by the majority at your command, but what effect will that have, in so far as the trade unions refuse to accept, upon the reasonable ground that they have never yet been consulted on the matter? Then you will be face to face with a position far worse than anything you can contemplate now, and, as a matter of fact, that effort of speed would have put you back to an indeterminate time, but certainly longer than anything you have to face now. Secondly, when you come to consider the question, as you will have to consider it, whether you like it or not, you will have to face it then in a situation of suspicion and distrust which will be largely enhanced by the effort to force the Bill through to-day. As one Noble Lord said, if you divide this measure, the part that is suspended can never be resuscitated and will ultimately die. Then why on earth should it not die? That the Bill might die does not prove the death of the idea, surely? The idea will not die, but will live and will receive its resurrection at the I lands of a Government which has given it further and wider consideration in consultation with the two aides concerned in this great economic question, and will resuscitate the idea in the terms of a new Bill which can probably be accepted by this House with very little discussion at all.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope the hon. Member who has just sat down will not think I am one of these "servile majority" with the "dog-collar round my neck." [An HON. MEMBER: "But there are a lot of you there! "] I would not venture to answer for any of my Friends, but I can claim a certain amount of freedom of speech for myself, sufficient for me under present conditions. At any rate, I hope the hon.
Gentleman will not attribute servility to me if I would press upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite what is, to some of us, the very real disadvantage of endeavouring to force a Division on the, Motion to divide this Bill into two parts. It is difficult really to deal with this question briefly without transgressing your ruling as to going into the merits of different parts of the Bill, but may I say one or two words on this question of separation? I do urge the point, because I realise for one, as I am sure many do, that, supposing the whole Bill is gone on with, we are anxious that it should go on with the good will of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. It is true that the Bill has been brought in at short notice, and I candidly could have wished for my own part to have had a longer time as a member of the third party, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil) said, really to consider it from the point of view of the third party, which has an equal interest in these disputes. Therefore, from that point of view, I share the opinion of Members opposite in wishing we could have had more time to go into the details of the Bill.
But, as it has been brought in now, the question before us is, Are we or are we not to consider it altogether? There are three parts. There is Part III.-which it is understood on all sides and agreed must clearly be passed into law with a minimum of delay, and the question for decision is, Are we or are we not to leave out Parts I. and II.? The right hon. Gentleman, speaking for the, steel industry, has claimed for it a great record in matters of arbitration, and we would all gladly acknowledge it. But may I just point out—and I speak under correction—that Part I. of the Bill, to which I myself do not attach so much importance, does not really fasten upon any trade union any new mode, unless they really wish to apply for it, and they can go on with their previous methods of settling disputes if they want to, and are not compelled to adopt the procedure under Part I. if the Bill is passed. With regard to Part II., many of us do attach, rightly or wrongly, a very great importance to its value. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that if this importance is attached to it, surely it will be brought forward at some subsequent time as a measure by itself. I am sure
hon. Members who are accustomed to the course of business in this House are fully aware that if a measure of this kind is dropped when it has come up to this stage there is a great likelihood that no place will be found, in the great congestion of business, certainly this Session, and it looks hardly likely in the next Session.

Mr. IRVING: It is a measure which will force its own way.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member thinks it is a desirable method, cannot we really go forward with it this afternoon, instead of postponing it? The very desirability of it makes it desirable not to postpone it, and in so far as really no disadvantage is imposed upon either side, it would be a pity to impose a delay on the passing of this part of the measure, which a decision to divide the Bill into two parts would inevitably do.

Mr. ADAMSON: One word on what has been said by my hon. Friends with the view of trying to prevail upon the Minister of Labour to reconsider his attitude upon this Amendment. The most important element in legislation of this character is that it should carry the common consent. What hope has the Minister of this Bill being successful when he knows that, at this juncture, it carries neither the consent of the employer nor of the employed. My right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Hodge) has just informed the Committee that there has been a joint deputation of employers and workmen discussing this very matter with him to-day. During the course of the Debate this afternoon we have had another employer in the person of one of the Members for Renfrew appealing to the Minister of Labour to withdraw this part of the Bill for the time being. There are certain members on the opposite side who seem to think that my hon. Friends who have taken part in the Debate are of the opinion that this part of the Bill carries the idea of compulsory arbitration. That, is not so. What we, however, do contend is that the Minister of Labour is forcing upon us this part of the Bill before those who are vitally affected have had time to go into the whole matter and consider the contents of the Bill in a way that will guarantee its acceptance. I want further to say to the Minister of Labour that arrangements have been made for a special meeting of the trades affected by this measure being held on Friday. The representatives
are meeting for the purpose, of seeing what the Bill is like after it has passed through the Committee stage. It is quite legitimate that those vitally affected by a measure of this character should be entitled to meet and consider after it has passed through its Committee stage how it is going to affect them. The Minister of Labour has refused, on behalf of the Government, to agree to the Amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend. If this special meeting, in view of what has occurred to-day, takes up a hostile attitude to the Third Heading I want to ask the Minister of Labour seriously what hope has he of this Bill being successfully administered? In view of what has been said, and the issues involved, those of us representing Labour have told the Committee and the Minister of Labour that we are in favour of arbitration and conciliation. I have been associated with the movement for thirty years. During the whole of that time I have been in favour of all disputes, as they have arisen, being settled by conciliation and by arbitration rather than by strikes. I am not going back upon that. In view of all that has been said, I think the Minister of Labour will be well-advised—and I make this final appeal—even yet to agree to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. Feeling is bound to arise, if this matter is carried to a Division, that will endanger the successful administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Colonel GRIEG: Upon one point— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—I want to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has welcomed the passage of this Bill in Committee, and has just told us there is to be a meeting called together to consider the Bill after it has passed the Committee stage. If we accept the proposition he puts forward we would be frustrating that meeting. Like others here, I am not an employer of labour, but merely a member of the public. What was the great reason put forward by the hon. Member for Derby during the recent strike for something that he sought? He and his friends said—and we all felt it was perfectly true—that the public had heard very little of the dispute from either side. Therefore, the sooner this measure is passed the better. It would give the public the earlier opportunity of forming an opinion, of coming to a conclusion, and of making up its mind on these matters. For that reason the second part of the
Bill is, to my mind, the most urgent, and I hope the Government will not separate it from the other parts.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[6.25 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jesson, C.
Swan, J. E. C.


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Johnstons, J.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lieut. Commander
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-
Lunn, William
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Newbould, A. E.
Wallace, J.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
O'Grady, James
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Galbraith. Samuel
Rose, Frank H.
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
Rowlands, James
Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Royce, William Stapleton



Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr.


Hartshorn, V.
Sitch, C. H.
T. Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Artnur






NOES.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Edge, Captain William
Knights, Captain H.


Allen, Colonel William James
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Archdale, Edward M.
Falcon, Captain M.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar


Atkey, A. R.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lewis, T. A, (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Fell, Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Baldwin, Stanley
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt' don)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lonsdale, James R.


Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)
Foreman, H.
Lorden, John William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lort-Williams, J.


Barnston, Major H.
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Lowe, Sir F. W.


Barrand, A. R.
Ganzoni, Captain F, C.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Lynn, R. J.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Gilbert, James Daniel
Macleod, John Mackintosh


Bennett, T. J.
Gilmour, Lieut. -Colonel John
Macmaster, Donald


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Grant, James Augustus
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Betterton, H. B.
Gray, Major E.
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)


Blair, Major Reginald
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Magnus, Sir Philip


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.).


Breese, Major C. E.
Greig, Colonel James William
Marriott, John Arthur R.


Buchanan, Lieut. -Colonel A. L. H.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Martin, A. E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hn. W. E. (B. St. E)
Mitchell, William Lane


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Moles, Thomas


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hall, Lt-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Morris, Richard


Carr, W. T.
Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Cautley, Henry Strether
Haslam, Lewis
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Murchison, C. K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburg, S.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Cheyne, sir William Watson
Hinds, John
Nield, Sir Herbert


Coates, Major sir Edward F.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
O'Neill, Capt, Hon. Robert W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Parker, James


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Howard, Major S. G.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Perkins, Walter Frank


Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Perring, William George


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurd, P. A.
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jodrell, N. P.
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton.


Dawes, J. A.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Pratt, John William


Denison-Pender, John C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Dockrell, Sir M.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Purchase, H. G.


Donald, T.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Rae, H. Norman


Doyle, N. Grattan
Kerr-Smiley. Major P.
Raeburn, Sir William


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ramsden, G. T.

Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the establishment of an Industrial Court and Courts of Inquiry in connection with trade disputes, and the other to continue for a limited period certain of the provisions of the Wages (Temporary; Regulation) Act, 1918.

The House divided: Ayes, 46; Hoes, 204.

Raw, Lieut-Colonel Dr. N.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson


Reid, D. D.
Sturrock, J. Long-
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.
Sutherland, Sir William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Terrell, Capt, R. (Henley, Oxford)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Scott, A. M. (Gias., Bridgeton)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Scott. Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Young, Sir Alfred William


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Walters, Sir John Tudor
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wardle, George J.



Stanley, Col. H. G. F. (Preston)
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Steel, Major S. Strong
Whitla, Sir William
Talbot and Captain F Guest.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Industrial Court.)

(1) For the purpose of the settlement of trade disputes in manner provided by this Act there shall be a standing industrial Court, consisting of persons to be appointed by the Minister of Labour (in this Act referred to as "the Minister"), of whom some shall be independent persons, some shall be persons representing employers, and some shall be persons representing workmen.
(2) A member of the Industrial Court shall hold office for such term as may be fixed by the Minister at the time of his appointment.
(3) For the purpose of dealing with any matter which may be referred to it the Court shall be constituted of such of the members of the Court as the Minister may by order, given either generally or specially, direct.
(4) The president of the Court, and the chairman of any division of the Court, shall be such person, being one of the independent persons aforesaid, as the Minister may by order, given either generally or specially, direct.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the first four Amendments on the Paper are all of the same nature, and therefore I suggest that we should take the discussion on the first Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "a standing."
I think your ruling, Mr. Chairman, will make it simpler for us to state our case. I would like, first of all, to refer to a statement made by the Leader of the Labour party which, I think, was completely misunderstood, and upon it a great deal depends. My right hon. Friend said that when this Bill had emerged from the Committee stage there would be a conference of trade union leaders who would decide their attitude towards the Bill when it reached the Report stage. The question may be put, "Why not let this Bill pass through Committee?" Our reply must be that we may certainly anticipate the continual and determined hostility of that conference to this Bill unless
in its Committee stages it is very materially improved from our point of view. We thought that improvement could best be secured by separating the dissimilar parts of the Bill, and now that the House has decided that question we ask the Committee to assist those of us who are seriously seeking the peace of industry and the erection of the best machinery to secure it. We ask for assistance in so improving this Bill as to make it acceptable to the conference which will take place in the course of a very few days.
I have argued during previous stages of this discussion, and in this I think the Minister of Labour wholly agrees, that your work of arbitration very largely depends upon the personnel of the Courts that you create and mould. The law of this country stands high in the regard of the great majority of Englishmen, and it does so because of the uniform impartiality displayed in its application and administration. This Bill is really proposing to supplement the law, or, rather, to be a law within a law to establish Courts that will have very great powers, at least in regard to those who come before them, whether they come voluntarily or in response to public pressure. Therefore, it is all-important that the personnel of those great Industrial Courts should not be merely above suspicion but should be of such a character as to invite people to come before them to have their cases decided. As a rule, before the ordinary Courts of law people now only go to them when they are driven, or when there is come element of compulsion in respect of a dispute about property which drives people before the ordinary Civil Courts. By here you are proposing to establish a third form of Court, namely, an Industrial Court, and the expectation will be, if you do establish these Courts, that people will make the fullest use of them.
The complicated character of these thousands of occupations which are carried on
to-day inevitably occasion almost every hour of the day some dispute in industry, and we are fortunate in having so many of these disputes amicably settled either by negotiation or by methods of arbitration. The Minister of Labour informed the House last week during an earlier stage of this Bill that there were some 800 instances where Arbitration Courts had given awards, and that only in three had those awards been set aside and the men had struck work against the awards. I think it is important that we should constitute our Courts in such a form and in regard to personnel in such a manner as to attract these quarrelling parties and not merely establish confidence, but that gradually there should be evolved a habit of mind to go before those boards which by their constitution and personnel have become recognised as proper places for referring these differences for settlement. I am sure that no one, speaking on these matters, can express himself in terms which would cover absolutely the whole variety of views which exist in the trade union mind. There are some who believe that it would be better that the trade unions should not have the appointment of representatives even in the sense of having the right to suggest certain persons not to say actually elect them or choose them on these Courts. There are others who have no confidence in the Court unless they feel that their side is specifically and definitely represented. Those who hold that view do so because they say that many of these awards depend upon the knowledge of the Court of the circumstances under which the claims have arisen.
I have acted upon a dozen or so arbitration Courts dealing with a very great variety of occupations, and the arbitrator is fortunate whose experience has given him some very general knowledge which I do not claim to have in excess of any other man, but the arbitrator is fortunate who has had a very varied experience of the inner workings of a large number of our trades and industries, because when he comes to give judgment he gives it with a greater knowledge of the circumstances and the causes out of which the claims have arisen, and therefore the working-class view in the main, though not unanimous, is that the Courts ought to be so constituted as to include persons who will have a practical knowledge by their past experience or association or attachment of these different industries to qualify
them for giving a decision upon the questions which have to be settled. We would like in all these instances that whether men are drawn from the employers' or the workmen's side they should keep in mind that they are there in the capacity of judges to a great extent, and they should imitate the judges who sit upon other benches in the higher Court in applying as large a measure as possible of the judicial mind which has distinguished the Courts of this country.
Next to striving after a fair decision a knowledge of the industrial circumstances and the conditions under which claims have arisen is of very great assistance to those who have these cases to decide. For these reasons I should like the right hon. Gentleman, in the early stages of our discussion on this Amendment, to indicate his intentions, because the Bill as it is appears to me to prohibit entirely the appointment of all such persons. I do not question the motive or criticise the wisdom which has been exhibited in the case of previous appointments so far as Arbitration Courts have been set up, but they wore temporary, and they were merely experiments. Here is a Bill proposing to make permanent a new and important feature in the industrial affairs of this country, and therefore it is essential that at the very beginning the personnel of these Courts should be so arranged as not only to retain confidence but actually to attract persons into the Arbitration Courts in order that quarrels should be settled in the Courts rather than be settled by strikes and stoppage of work.
Those of us who have responsibilities in relation to this Bill have been misunderstood in our efforts to state fairly the trade union position, and I hope I shall not be ruled out of order if I deal very briefly with this point. We say that this matter ought not to be hurried, and we have pointed out that trade unions exist in hundreds and cover millions of members, and they have not yet had an opportunity of dealing with these questions and have not been brought together to consider them. The answer given to us is to the effect that we ought to raise ourselves out of the position of representing our trade unions into the position of representing our constituents. The answer to that is that this Bill proposes to deal mainly, if not solely, with the conduct of trade unions. The words "trade
unions" may not be found in the Bill, but when the Bill was being drafted the Minister and his assistants would be thinking every moment in the terms of trade unionism and in the terms of these organisations. The argument, therefore, does not apply with the same force which in ordinary circumstances it would do when hon. Members of this House desire to consult their constituents. As soon as this Bill is put through, it will be applied to trade unions and employers' associations only, and we think that we are best serving the public and national interest when we try to get legislation of this character to meet the views both of employers' associations and the great trade unions as well. I suggest, therefore, that we cannot leave out of account the position of these very numerous organisations, and the supreme desirability of attracting their goodwill by the details of this measure, in order that, when finally passed, it may be the means of improving and increasing that degree of the conciliatory spirit which we wish to see in the industries and trades of the country.

Sir R. HORNE: I will not attempt to put in language which would in any sense equal that of my right hon. Friend the objects with which we propose to establish these Industrial Courts. I, therefore, adopt his point of view when I proceed to deal with the character of the Court which is to be set up. Perhaps it will facilitate the understanding of the House if, in response to the request of my right hon. Friend, I say briefly what is the mechanism which we contemplate. We propose, in the first place, a Standing Court, and my right hon. Friend, in the language which he has used, has paid a tribute to the value of experience in this regard. You want, indeed, a body of people who are able to take a comprehensive view of the Labour question and, in particular, who are able to take a comprehensive view of the wages question. Every set of wages in every trade is related in some degree to every set of wages in every other trade. You cannot dissociate what is decided in one case from what may be asked in another case. Therefore, it would be futile to have a Court ad hoc for each case that might come up, because then you would get a series of dissociated judgments which would have no relation to each other, and which would tend to cause confusion where you hoped for harmony. Ac-
cordingly, you must begin with a Standing Court. It will remain for the Committee to determine what the precise number should be, because at the present time my mind is not made up. You must, however, start with a nucleus of men who have had experience and whose experience grows with their work.
I think I shall meet the other parts of my right hon. Friend's Amendment when I proceed to give a description of what we shall have in addition to the Standing Court. I agree with the view he has expressed that we could scarcely hope to get that judicial attitude which we desire if we appoint men directly either by an employers' organisation or a trade union organisation for the purpose of deciding a particular case. It would be impossible to have a judicial atmosphere in such circumstances because what you would do would be to send a man there to represent your case and not to judge it. On the other hand, we do require that in most cases there should be people skilled in the particular trade to give advice to the Court. Recognising the advisability of such advice, we propose to have panels of assessors, and that, I think, meets the four Amendments on the Paper. We propose to have panels of assessors drawn from the employers' side and the employed side, and we propose that these shall be appointed in consultation with the trade union organisations on the one side and the employers' organisations on the other.

Mr. HENDERSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the panels would be panels of persons having the same power and performing the same functions as the panels of assessors of the Board of Trade for arbitration cases that have been in existence for some eight or ten years?

Sir R. HORNE: That is a class of institution that I contemplate, and it is a system which is familiar to everyone who has had to do with those industrial disputes. That is the character of the Court which we suggest, and the way in which the matter will be worked out, according to our view, is something like this. If a case is reported to the Minister, and if he, after consideration, regards it as a case-which requires to be dealt with by some-method of conciliation other than that which he might immediately apply through his own Department he can do
one of three things, always provided that the consent of both parties is given. He can refer the matter to the Industrial Court, providing that it may sit with the necessary assessors, or he can refer it to a single arbitrator if the parties so desire, or again, he can refer it to an Arbitration Court upon which there will be an independent chairman and representatives both of the employers and employed, selected in that case by the parties concerned from the panels which have been described. In response to an apprehension which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), we propose, if the Committee agree, to adopt an Amendment which he has put forward and which provides wherever you have current and operative in any trade means of settlement already agreed upon, then the Minister shall not refer it to any of the means I have already described until he is assured that the ordinary means of conciliation in the trade have failed. I think that mechanism will meet all points of view, and I hope it will be possible under these circumstances for the Amendments which are immediately before the Committee to be withdrawn.

Mr. HENDERSON: We are very pleased, I am sure, to hear the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It does not go the full length that we would have liked, but the fact that he has consented to continue the panel system undoubtedly will give great satisfaction to the Labour movement. I should like, however, to be quite clear, before accepting the suggestion with regard to our Amendments, that the persons drawn from the panels of employers or from the panel of workmen, the trade unions, are more than assessors. This is of essential importance to us. As I understand the functions that the panel arbitrators have had to perform in the past, the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be withdrawing from them much of the power that they formerly possessed. I myself have been a member of a panel arbitration Court on a good many occasions. We usually heard all the evidence that could be submitted by both the employers and workmen's representatives, and the chairman, who, of course, had the final say in the matter, waited until he saw whether the representative from the chairman's panel and the representative from the workmen's panel agreed, and, if they did, he merely issued the award.
If they failed to agree, he said that it was his business to act, and, having heard the evidence, he gave his award, which might-disagree from the decision at which the other two would have wished to-arrive. I may say that I was never a member of a Court where the representative from the employers' panel and workmen's panel failed to agree and where the award was not issued accordingly by the chairman. Those powers, I think I am right in saying, are more than the powers usually held by assessors. There are legal Gentlemen, including the Solicitor-General, present, and I want to be perfectly clear on this point.
7.0 P.M
The panel system has really commended itself to both employers and workmen in a way never expected when they were set up, if I remember rightly, by Lord Buxton, who was then at the Board of Trade. They have really worked and given considerable satisfaction, and I do therefore hope that my right hon. Friend, before we pass from this Amendment, will be able to assure the House that the functions that the panel representatives have been able to perform in the past will be continued. They have been made more acceptable on both sides because the conciliation schemes that have worked best and worked longest have been those cases in which, first of all, there was an attempt to get a settlement on the basis, of conciliation, and in which, if they failed to agree on the basis of conciliation, they retained the power to appoint one by the employers and one by the workmen, the two agreeing upon the third party, who should be the chairman. The panel system secured the greatest confidence from the representatives of both employers and workmen, because it was the nearest akin to the practice which had grown up over a good many years. I have been chairman of two conciliation boards on the workman's side. We always worked on that principle, and so I can speak from experience, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the more conciliation you can introduce in the first instance, apart from arbitration, the better it is for all concerned. My objection to this Bill is that there is too much arbitration and too little conciliation. One of the things I regret is that there is a proposal in the last Clause of the Bill to repeal the old Conciliation Act of 1896. It seems to me that is a mistake, because the very
term "Conciliation Act" encourages people, both employers and employed, to think that there is some value in a scheme of conciliation. But there is no conciliation in this Bill so far as I can see. It is arbitration in. the first place and then it is Courts of Inquiry, which are different things to schemes of conciliation. In the minds of thousands of trade unionists this Bill is now clouded with suspicion, and I wish even now it could be possible for us to have put into the Bill something that would encourage employers on the one side and workmen on the other to go in for schemes of conciliation, and where they fail to then have resort to the old panel system with the powers to which I have just referred. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had responded to the invitation of the steel trade, and was arcing to adopt an Amendment that would give power to contract out of the Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: No.

Mr. HENDERSON: Then I have misunderstood the Amendment. As I read it, where there was a conciliation scheme for adjusting differences by mutual arrangement between employers and employed the Ministry does not propose to act.

Sir R. HORNE: My right hon. Friend surely remembers that this is a purely voluntary arrangement, and there can be no talk about contracting out therefore. People need never come to this tribunal unless they wish. If the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) has a scheme in his particular trade for conciliation then undoubtedly he is free to use it, and it is not until it has failed that the Minister can make any reference to any further procedure, and even then the Minister, of course, can only do it with the consent of the parties.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have only hurriedly glanced at the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept, and it does appear to me that under it, first of all, conciliation is to be tried, and where that fails then there is power to set up an Arbitration Court. I think it would be an immense advantage if it could be possible for employers and trade unionists to go outside the Act altogether, and I cannot understand how it is, seeing that we have had the steel trade working on
this principle of conciliation and voluntary arbitration all these years, and seeing also that other trades have been working for so many years on the same principle, I cannot understand why the Government should be afraid to trust the two parties most vitally concerned. I am very much disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman is going to keep these powers in spite of any effort that may be made by employers and employed to set up voluntary schemes for avoiding disputes. I regret that, notwithstanding such efforts, they are still to be kept inside the Act. Unless I am entirely mistaken that will not commend itself to the great number of trade unionists, and I doubt whether it would even commend itself to the great body of organised employers. I hope that even now, or at any rate on the Report stage, these matters will be taken a point further, and it will be provided that where the Minister can be satisfied that proper provision is made within the scheme for conciliation and arbitration they will be entirely free of the Bill.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: That is the proposal of the Bill.

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not read it so. I do not think it is. I find nothing in the Bill encouraging schemes of conciliation. I have already said that the last Clause repeals the Conciliation Act of 1896. There is nothing in the Bill, so far as I can see, to set up or continue the panels that have been so acceptable in the past to both employers and employed. The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend seeks to substitute the panel system for the Court of Arbitration. He has good reasons for that. I want to be perfectly clear on the point. I am referring, of course, to the Amendment which has just been moved, and on which Hangs a, series of Amendments, the object of winch is to cut out the Industrial Court, to refuse to make that Court a permanent piece of machinery, and to substitute for it a system of panels. I understand the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment for removing the Court, but that he is prepared to supplement the Court by continuing the system of panels with all the powers that they had under the old panel system. If we can be assured on that point it will probably shorten the Debate on this Amendment.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I hare not succeeded in making myself clear to the
Committee. Let me reiterate the fact that nobody is compelled under this Bill to go before the Industrial Arbitration Court at all; everybody is free to adopt the system which has been in operation in any particular trade. Take my right hon. Friend's trade, the iron and steel trade. The old arbitration system, the conciliation system, in vogue in that trade, is still open to the trade, and it is only if it breaks down on any particular occasion that there is any necessity to come to the Industrial Court at all, and then only if they want to do so. Let that be perfectly clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) talked of the panel system set up under the powers of the Conciliation Act, and regretted the suggestion that that Conciliation Act should be repealed.

Mr. HENDERSON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not connect the panel system with the Conciliation Act. The Conciliation Act was passed many years before the panel system was established.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon I misunderstood what he had in his mind. Let me make this clear to the Committee. The Conciliation Act did nothing at all except in the first place to allow Conciliation Boards to be registered. That was no advantage. There are more Conciliation Boards in existence to-day which are not registered than there are which are registered, and the Conciliation Boards which are not registered have all the functions and powers of the Conciliation Boards which are registered. Therefore the Conciliation Act does nothing at all to help conciliation. What it does do is to allow the Minister of Labour where a dispute is in existence or apprehended to offer conciliation. It can be refused. The real effect is this. So far as the Conciliation Act is concerned in its terms it does not in effect establish conciliation and where conciliation has been successful it has been because the parties wanted to be conciliated. All that has been done under this panel system has been this, that in view of the fact that formerly the President of the Board of Trade and now the Minister of Labour might offer to intervene for the purpose of bringing about a conciliation, he for his own purposes establishes a panel of persons whose names he can suggest to the parties to
the dispute. That is how the panel system arose. It was purely a voluntary affair, but it came to be taken advantage of by a variety of trades. The President of the Board kept a list of representative people in the industries, and that list he could consult with a view to their being invited to act as arbitrators in particular disputes. I propose to continue that panel system for that purpose. The arrangement accordingly is this. If you have, as in the iron and steel trade, a system of conciliation you will go on as before until it fails, and even then you would only voluntarily come to the Minister for Labour. Consequently if you wish, when you do come to the Ministry of Labour, to have instead of an Industrial Court an Arbitration Board under the panel system to which you are accustomed, with representatives of employers and employed, you will have an independent Chairman nominated by the Minister, and you will have a board on which the employers' and employés' representatives will have their vote as members of the Court. That is the class of arbitration which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. If it is a matter that can be settled by a single arbitrator you can say to the Minister you want a single arbitrator and he will be able to nominate one in consultation with you. If you do not want that but want an Industrial Court you will get a Court composed of experienced men accustomed to dealing with disputes. That Court will consist of the Chairman, a man who will have knowledge of the labour point of view as well as the employing point of view and you will have a nucleus of permanent judges who will have the experience required and will be able to bring a judicial mind to bear on the matters in dispute. That Court may also have assessors and in that case the the assessors will not have a vote. Obviously they will be there to advise. But in the other case of the Board of Arbitration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, the assessors will have their vote as before. I am sorry to have inflicted myself on the Committee again, but I hope I have now made clear my position.

Captain COOTE: I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that while he is in the habit of dealing with practically every industry in this country he has not been in the habit of dealing with the major industry, namely agricul-
ture, and I would like to suggest that on this Court of permanent officials there should be one with a special knowledge of that particular industry. I feel sure that will be a source of great confidence in future should any dispute arise in that industry which would necessitate recourse being had to that Court. Fortunately that industry so far has been remarkable for the absence of disputes. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Genlteman will take that matter into consideration and see if he cannot appoint some official with the qualifications I have stated as a permanent member of that Court.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not deal with one point in answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes, that is, in regard to the question of conciliation. As I read Clause 2 of the Bill, there will be in the Minister ample power to refer to the Industrial Court any matter for conciliation, as distinct from settlement, if he so chooses. Under Subsection (1) of Clause 2, I think the power is inherent, but possibly the Minister of Labour would answer this specific question before we pass from this Amendment. If it is not included in Clause 2, will he agree to put in any verbal alteration which is necessary to confer on him the power of using the Industrial Court for the purpose of conciliation, should the parties so desire it? I imagine it is quite clear to the Committee that the existing methods of conciliation will continue untouched by this Bill, and that everybody will be able to continue to use those methods as at present. The only question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes is whether this Court is intended to deal only with arbitration and not with conciliation. I very strongly agree, with him that it is desirable that there should be power in the Minister, if he thinks fit, at the request of the parties to refer the matter to that Court for conciliatory purposes.

Mr. HODGE: I trust that the Minister of Labour will never make the mistake of making his Arbitration Court a Conciliation Court. It would be an absolute failure, because on one day they would be conciliating and the next day they would have to give a decision against one of the two parties whom they were trying to conciliate. May I say we are quite satisfied with the answer the
right hon. Genteman has given? We are glad he is going to continue the old panel system, which has worked very well. He knows, as a result of the deputation which met him this morning from employers as well as work-men, that we want to be excluded from the Bill. If during the past sixty years we have not needed anybody's services, I am sure we shall not need them in the next sixty years, because the schoolmaster has been abroad. It will interest the Committee to know that in one section of the iron and steel trades there has not been a strike for sixty years, and in another section—a later section—there has not been a strike for thirty-one years. That is as between associated employers and associated workmen. What we should like to see in the Bill would be a Clause providing that when the workman and employers agree upon a standard of wages, that standard should be mark applicable to all outside employers. I do not know whether or not that comes within the scope of the Bill, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is a direction in which his mind might work in the near future.

Mr. THOMAS: We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very clear explanation he gave us, but I should like to be clear upon one point. As I understood him, he limited himself to saying that the Bill and the Clause with which we are now dealing do not interfere with any existing machinery, so that if there is machinery in a trade or industry in operation, nothing in this Bill interferes with or abrogates the power of that machinery.

Sir R. HORNE: indicated assent.

Mr. THOMAS: That is quite clear. Is that also applicable to trade or industries with contemplated machinery? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have at this moment set up machinery which I hope will be successful. The machinery is not now in operation. It is entirely different from this, and I want it to be made quite clear that nothing in this Bill applies to any machinery set up between employers and employés as distinct from machinery already in existence.

Sir R. HORNE: That is quite clear. Any machinery which is in existence at the time of the dispute can be used by the people who have set it up, quite irrespective of the Bill altogether. Nothing in the Bill interferes with the operation of that machinery. As to the question put by my hon. and
learned Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott), the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hodge), with his very long experiene of these industrial disputes, has given the correct answer. You cannot have a body which is both a conciliation tribunal and an Arbitration Court. It is impossible to unite their functions. Under Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 there is complete power in the Minister to take every means which seem expedient to him to bring about a settlement of the dispute, and that involves all methods of conciliation open to anybody.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "and one or more shall be women."
In reply to an interruption to his speech on the Second Reading, the Minister of Labour indicated that, in his view and that of the Department, it would be desirable that the services of at least one woman should be available on the Court. The effect of my Amendment is to provide for the presence of one woman or more of experience who shall be available to be called in every proper case. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, although in the Bill as it stands there exists the power to appoint a woman, it is desirable that the House of Commons should indicate by the express insertion of such an Amendment its view of the desirability that cases which concern women shall be considered by a tribunal on which women are present. My own experience for some fourteen months as chairman of an Arbitration Tribunal with women as colleagues was that the experience of women in dealing with these women's cases was quite invaluable. I cannot imagine any Arbitration Tribunals dealing efficiently with cases in which women are concerned without the experience and guidance of women who have made a special study of these matters. I am sure the Amendment will commend itself to the general opinion of the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE: I regret to say that I cannot adopt the words suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not that I fail in any way to appreciate the value of women's services in connection with matters of dispute on any questions which may arise regarding women's wages or work, for undoubtedly it is of the greatest importance that the knowledge and experience of women should be brought, to bear upon the judging of those cases. But the Court
which is contemplated in the first place will not consist of large numbers, and I cannot promise that the permanent Court should have as one of its members a woman—at any rate, at this stage. I shall see to it that women are put upon the panels of those who may be co-opted as assessors to advise the Court or for the purpose of being put on an ad hoc Arbitration Tribunal. I hope what I have suggested in that respect will meet the desire of my hon. Friend.

Major HILLS: I have heard with some disappointment the speech of my right hon. Friend. May I call his attention to one fact which has not yet been, mentioned? This Bill puts the Arbitration Court in the place of the Interim Arbitration Board set up under the Wages Regulation Act. That Board found its origin in the Special Arbitration Tribunal set up at the Ministry of Munitions. During the War a body called the Special Arbitration Tribunal was set up which was practically the controlling and deciding body in regard to women's wages. Its work was perfectly invaluable. It consisted partly of women. When the War came to an end, the work of that Special Arbitration Tribunal was transferred to the Interim Tribunals under the Wages Regulation Act. By this Bill the work of those Interim Tribunals is to be transferred to the Industrial Court. There is a tremendous case for putting women into the position they have held since the War and hold now of sitting on the Courts which regulate women's wages. I hope my right hon. Friend will not finally close 5he door to this suggestion. It is quite clear there will have to be some regulation of women's wages. When the 30th September comes we cannot let things go back to where they were before the War, or let women's wages go back to 12s. or 13s. a week. It would be a great disaster if women were shut out from the body which must be the body to control and regulate their wages. I do not press for an answer now if we cannot get one, but I do press most strongly for further consideration of this point. It is vital in the women's interest that Courts that decide their wages should consist partly of women. I trust my right hon. Friend will further consider this very important point.

Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to supplement the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills). We set out in our Amendments to take out this permanent Court, but the
Committee decided to retain it. In the next year or two, at any rate, many of the cases coming before the Court may involve a considerable number of women workers, in fact, there may be cases coming before the Courts in which the employés are exclusively women. If the right hon. Gentleman between now and the Report stage will go into the matter and try to arrange for words to be introduced making it possible for a woman to be added to the Court, on the understanding that she would only be called upon in cases where a good part of all the employés were women, I think that would give very great satisfaction to the Committee. I hope he will go into it from that standpoint and see whether he cannot arrange something in harmony with the terms of the Amendment.

Sir R. HORNE: I should be very glad to adopt the suggestion. Of course, there is nothing in the Bill at present which in any way excludes the appointment of women or makes it incompetent to appoint them. All I said was that I could not undertake that in the first permanent Court there would necessarily be a woman, but I gave an assurance that when women's questions were being raised there would be women who would sit, not necessarily as members of the Court, but as advisers to the Court. I understand that more than that is asked, and I certainly should be very glad to give consideration to it between now and the Report stage.

Mr. A. SHAW: I am both surprised and grievously disappointed at the reactionary tone which has been assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think the thousands of working women in the country will feel to-morrow that they have been fairly treated by the Government for which they voted at the General Election, and I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) that this is a question of vital importance, not only to the women themselves, but to every man in this country. The right hon. Gentleman seems entirely to forget that the interests of men in this question are at stake just as much as the interests of women, and if we are to be faced with a situation in which, without a woman upon the Court, decisions may be taken which will make the wages of women in this country sink down to the low levels at which they stood before the War, it is a very bad look-out for men.

Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member cannot have recognised or made himself acquainted with what has been done by the Ministry of Labour during the last year.

Mr. SHAW: I probably know as much about that as the right hon. Gentleman, and I can inform him that it amounts to very little. I can further inform him, from an acquaintance with this question before ever he touched it, that the great development in the wages of women workers during the War was not due to his Ministry, but to the wise work of his colleague who is at the Ministry of Munitions. It was he who appointed the arbitration tribunal, on which I served, and which created for the first time a really high standard of remuneration for female labour. I am extremely disappointed to find now that this question has been thrown back to the Ministry of Labour, that a reactionary standard is assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that a woman will be placed on the Court to interfere where the wages of men are concerned, but that she will be there able to be called upon by the Minister in a proper case, and the cases where she would be called upon are the cases where the wages of women are concerned. It only means that the House of Commons will provide that where women's cases are concerned there shall always be one woman available and in close touch with the development, of general wages' questions. Such women exist. I have served with two who would not detract from the strength of the Court which my right hon. Friend is to set up, but would add strength to it, and their judgment should be available. If my right hon. Friend suggests that those who favour putting a woman on a tribunal which has to deal with questions of vital import to women are actuated either by malice against the Ministry or by complete ignorance of the facts—

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is really misrepresenting me. My interpretation was due to the suggestion that I was attempting to force down the wages of women. I interrupted and said the hon. Member had not realised what had been done since the War. So far from women's wages being forced down, advantage has been taken of every possible means to force them up. If the hon. Member was the recipient of my correspondence he would rapidly realise that.
I was not paying attention to anything else he had said on the question or suggesting any reactionary policy at all.

Mr. SHAW: I never meant to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of forcing down the wages of women, but that he was resisting a proposal which would tend to maintain the level which women's wages have attained. I seriously doubt whether, if you set up a tribunal without the element of experience which women can give, women will realiy trust the tribunal, and I doubt whether they will be willing to forego the advantages which they may expect to receive from a stride in order to place-their case before a tribunal from which women are excluded. I really think it would not have been going very far if the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment. It in no way ties his hands. It leaves him free to appoint women or not, just as he pleases, if in proper cases he chooses to provide that there shall be a woman on the Court in close touch with the development of the situation, and therefore able, from her experience and knowledge, to add to the weight which would attach to the decisions of the tribunal in the cases which come before it. I feel very much inclined, as this is a matter of serious principle, to carry my protest into the Lobby. I would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Graham), who has a great personal knowledge of this subject, to give the House the benefit of his experience and views.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I should hardly have intervened but for the very strong appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw). I am utterly unable to appreciate the attitude of the Minister of Labour on this point. Not that I fail to appreciate and gladly recognise the offer he has made that the matter may be considered between now and Report. I should advocate the inclusion of women on the Industrial Courts on much broader grounds

even than those urged by my hon. Friend Even in cases in which no women are involved at all in an industrial dispute it is desirable that women should be members of a Court of that kind, because there is no industrial dispute affecting men in which women are not directly or indirectly interested also. But the main consideration which prompts my intervention is that I quite fail to reconcile the attitude of the Minister of Labour on this point with one of the most valuable Reports which have ever been presented within recent times—the Report of the Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry. The leading consideration which was urged in that Report was the question of equal pay for equal work, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that in the industrial progress of this country we are rapidly moving towards a great contest on that most important issue. Considerations arising from the advocacy of the principle of equal pay for equal work which was urged by that Cabinet Committee will come almost immediately before the Industrial Courts of this country of whatever kind. From that point of view alone I am utterly unable to understand the right hon. Gentleman's attitude in not making definite provision in this Bill for the inclusion of at least one woman on the Industrial Court. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of seeking to exclude women at all. I do not suggest that for a moment, and I appreciate the offer which he has made. But we should not leave it to the chance of between now and Report. The matter is one of high principle and great practical importance. On these grounds let us include it definitely now in the first Clause of the Bill, and act in harmony with the Report of the Cabinet Committee.

Question put, "That the words 'and one or more shall be women' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 119.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Tootill, Robert


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wallace, J.


Lort-Williams, J.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Lunn, William
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Waterson, A. E.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


McMicking. Major Gilbert
Sitch, C. H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Wignall, James


Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Sturrock, J. Leng-
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Newbould, A. E.
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


O'Grady, James
Swan, J. E. C.
Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)



Rae, H. Norman
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Raffan, Peter Wilson
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
A. Shaw, and Major Hills.




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridgs, Mddx.)


Allen, Colonel William James
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Perkins, Walter Frank


Archdale, Edward M.
Gretton, Colonel John
Perring, William George


Armitage, Robert
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles


Baird, John Lawrence
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Baldwin, Stanley
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hn. W. E. (B. St. E)
Pratt, John William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barnston, Major H.
Hamoro, Angus Valdemar
Purchase, H. G.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Raeburn, Sir William


Betterton, H. B.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Blane, T. A.
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.
Roundell, Lt. -Colonel R. F.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Rowlands, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Stanley, Col. H. G, F. (Preston)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Stewart, Gershom


Carr, W. T.
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Jodrell, N. P.
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Knights, Captain H.
Vickers, D.


Colvin. Brig.-General R. B.
Lloyd, George Butler
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Lorden, John William
Wardle, George J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Lynn, R. J.
Warner. Sir T. Courtenay T.


Dawes, J. A.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
White, Col. G. D. (southport)


Denison-Pender, John C
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Whitla, Sir William


Dixon, Captain H.
Macmaster, Donald
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Dockrell, Sir M.
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Martin, A. E.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Eyres-Monsell. Commander
Mitchell, William Lane-
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moles, Thomas
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Foreman, H.
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Forestior-Walker. L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, William (Dumfries)



Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Nield, Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Capt.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James
Guest and Colonel Sanders.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "for such terms us may be fixed by the Minister at the time of his appointment," and to insert instead thereof the words "during His Majesty's pleasure."
The object of this Amendment is to make the Court into a permanent Court, a member of which cannot be removed except by a vote of both Houses of Parliament. I differ from hon. Members opposite. They want a temporary Court; I want a Court of the most permanent character, and composed of the best men you can get. I want all the experience and knowledge of a permanent Court, and I want it to consist of members who for
a long period of years have belonged to tine Court. I want no conflicting decisions. Unless you get the experience of permanent members you will not get that knowledge. I want the status, the dignity, and the tradition of a permanent Industrial Court. I want something which stands up and to which all the community can go if they like, without compulsion; a Court which stands up bold and dignified, and in which everybody has trust. Incidentally, I hope the members of the Court will be well paid, so that poor men can serve on it, and I hope that the Court will be worthily housed in a fine and dignified building. I want this permanent Court to be independent
of all Governments. I do not want it to be a mere branch of a Government Department. I want the Court to be such that the subject can appeal to it, even when the Government is the other party; a Court from which the subject can always get a fair decision. In the railway strike we had the Government as one of the parties to the dispute. I want there to be such a Court that everybody will have confidence in it. I do not want there to be any suspicion of Departmental pressure on the chairman and members of the Court. I know the Minister of Labour too well to accuse him of malpractice of that sort. I know how uprightly and fairly he will administer this Court, but he is not a permanent Minister. Governments come and Governments go. I want this Court to be set up so that no Minister, even if he wished to do so, could possibly influence its decisions. I attach the very greatest importance to this Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Sir R. HORNE: I sympathise with everything my hon. Friend has said. The Court ought to be one which is completely independent, and certainly, so far as I am concerned, in the setting up of it what I desire above all things to do is to make a Court which will not only be impartial but will be known by everybody to be impartial, so that it will get the whole confidence of the whole country. The way to get the most complete impartiality is by appointing men upon the terms which my hon. Friend suggests, but I would beg the Committee to remember that we are here acting tentatively. We have to get to know, first, how the Committee is going to get to work, and I ask that this Amendment should not be forced upon us now. Everything should be done to give the people who are appointed an established position which will put them in a position of confidence in themselves, and if my hon. Friend would agree not to press this matter he may rely upon the discretion which is imposed in the Minister so far as the staffing and initiation of the Court is concerned.

Major General Sir NEWTON MOORE: There would be nothing novel in the constitution of the Court as suggested by the Mover of this Amendment. Members who have given any consideration to the Arbitration Act in Australia will remember that the chairman of the Court is a judge selected from the judges who possess the
necessary qualifications, and he is supported by two assessors, one appointed by the employers and one by the employés.

Major HILLS: I am impressed with what my right hon. Friend has said as to the experimental character of this legislation, and I do not think I ought to carry the matter further. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "the Minister may by order, given either generally or specially, direct," and to insert instead thereof the words "it may direct."
That would have the effect of allowing the Court to appoint its own sub-committees. It seems to me a very peculiar procedure to establish this very important Court, which is to have extremely important duties, and then to take away from it the power to appoint its own sub-committees. If you leave the Sub-section as it is the Court will not be able to appoint its own sub-committees. The Minister of Labour can step in and appoint the sub-committees of the Court. We do not know how many people are going to compose this Court. We do not know whether it is to be three, twenty, or forty. In every case, presumably, the full Court will not sit, but certain members of the Court will sit to adjudicate on a dispute, and I do think the Court ought to have the power to appoint its own sub-committees which are going to adjudicate. You must have confidence in the Court If the Government steps in and takes away this power you are really detracting in the eyes of the country from the authority of the Court itself.

Sir R. HORNE: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and following out what I have just said as to the Court being recognised as a completely impartial Court, I am prepared to substitute these words, "as the President may by order, given generally or specially, direct." That will put in the hands of the President of the Court the duty of constituting the Court in each case. If the hon. Member will allow me to move the Amendment in that form I shall be quite agreeable.

Mr. THOMAS: Would not that be even more dangerous? If you want, and I am sure you want, to establish confidence in the Court, it would be unfortunate if it goes forth that the President has more power than the rest of the members. I think it would be better to leave it to the Court than to the President. In absolute practice we know how it would work out. It is dangerous to suggest that the President should have more power than the other members of the Court.

Sir R. HORNE: I would accept what the right hon. Gentleman says if I could see it working out well from the executive point of view, but I am afraid one person must be responsible for collecting the Court and deciding who shall sit. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks for a moment he will see that it is advisable to leave it in the hands of the President. As I interpret this matter, the Court, will be a very small thing until we see how it works.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: I want to safeguard the possibility of being in the hands absolutely of one man, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put in the words "after consultation with."

Sir R. HORNE: I am perfectly agreeable to accept these words.

Mr. HENDERSON: I would still prefer to retain the power in the hands of the Minister. There may be questions to be raised sometimes, and our only safeguard is that we can question the Minister but we cannot question the President. I do not see why in this instance the Minister should depart from his original intention.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am very glad to hear what the Minister has said. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I would have preferred to leave it entirely to the Court, but I am quite willing to accept the modification that these sub-committees should be appointed by the President in consultation with the Court. Hon. Members looking at the Bill will see the finger prints of the Executive all over it. My object in moving the Amendment is to take away a little of the power of the Executive, which is so enormous in every Department of the State.

Sir R. HORNE: I am prepared to move an Amendment in the form suggested. I am perfectly certain that the Court will
be completely impartial, and to that extent will not be capable of being moved by the Ministry, but will be completely detached from all possibility of suspicion of that kind.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "Minister" and insert instead thereof the word "President."

Leave out the words "by order, given either generally or specially." and insert instead thereof the words "after consultation with the Court."— [Sir R. Horne.]

The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments have been disposed of already by the decision of the Committee.

Major HILLS: I am not quite clear whether my Amendment would not cover the appointment of assessor. I quite agree that as far as membership is concerned the point is disposed of, but my right hon. Friend indicated an inclination to accept an Amendment as to the appointment of women assessors.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it will be better to postpone that to the Report stage.

Major HILLS: May I formally move it now?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): The hon. Member for Durham (Major Hills) has been placed in some difficulty as to the appointment of women where the wages and conditions of labour or terms of employment of women are before the Court. I think there was some misunderstanding when the Question was put and we had a Division. As I understand, my right hon. Friend said definitely that he is considering the exact position which was raised by the Amendment which was before us, find in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) undertook on the Report stage of the Bill to see that the matter was in a saris factory position. It is very difficult at a moment's notice to be quite clear that you have got the right words. When you have a point raised it
is very often possible upon the Report stage to say whether or not the true intention of an Amendment is embodied in the Bill. My right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to deal with this matter on Report. The hon. Member was dissatisfied, and went to a Division, but under the Clause as it stands we must not forget what are the powers which my right hon. Friend has. We have already passed the Bill, which was entitled "a Bill to remove disqualification on account of sex," and the effect of that Bill must not be forgotten.

Major HILLS: The Bill is not law yet.

Sir E. POLLOCK: No, but I have every hope that in another place it will receive a welcome on its return, because it came from the other place. We sent it back with a few Amendments, and I do not think it will have lost its welcome, and I believe that its parents in another place will recognise their own child and pass the Bill into law. If my anticipations are not ill-founded then it must be remembered in regard to all Bills hereafter that we may pass that a woman is not disqualified by sex from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post. Therefore, as the Bill stands, as I read it, it is quite possible, if the Sex Disqualification Removal Bill passes into law, for the Minister who is exercising his powers under this Bill to appoint a woman. In those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will see, if, as I understand, in cases where the conditions of employment of women are concerned, the assistance of a woman assessor is desired, it will be quite unnecessary to give power to appoint a woman because under this new Bill you are no longer debarred from appointing a woman where you have got to appoint a person. That is a fundamental basis from which we start. My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will deal with this matter on Report. In those circumstances I trust the position will be regarded as quite satisfactory. It is because I rather understood that a certain amount of misunderstanding had been created by the attitude of my hon. Friend that I stood up to remove it. I feel sure that toy the time the Report stage is taken, if there is still any difficulty felt, it will be cleared away.

Mr. HENDERSON: The Committee must welcome the statement of the learned Solicitor-General, and we will
hope that something will tie done on Report to clear the matter up, because the fact that we had forced a Division on the question may create a slight misunderstanding in the minds of some people. I had no doubt in my mind that the promise made would still hold good, notwithstanding the Division. The question of the panels might be made a little clearer on the Report stage. I do not see any direct reference to the panels, and the conditions in which the persons so appointed are to discharge their duties, and I would not like to have the panels left unexplained by the actual words in the Bill.

Mr. A. SHAW: My right hon. Friend is quite correct in his suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Horne) will not consider the view to which he gave expression withdrawn, because of the Division which has taken place. Some of us found it necessary to carry our protests into the Division Lobby, but we hope that the Minister, on the merits of the case, will still remain of the opinion to which he gave expression. The Solicitor-General said that some difficulty was caused to the Government by having at a moment's notice to apply their minds to the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: What I said was not that there was difficulty in applying their minds to the Amendment, but that there was difficulty in saying at the moment how any particular Amendment fitted into the words of the Bill.

Mr. SHAW: Though my hon. and learned Friend may be unaware of the fact, I had written on Saturday to the Minister of Labour giving him the words of an Amendment. It may be that my right hon. Friend has not yet received the Amendment.

Sir R. HORNE: I am very sorry to say that I have not received any such notice.

Mr. SHAW: It was dispatched on Saturday, and the matter, therefore, rests between two Ministers—the right hon. Gentleman and the Postmaster-General. Apart from that, the Government have had months to think over this. We have had an interval of twelve months during which women were represented in these Courts, and I do not think it is any wild Amendment that where you have a general Court to consider particular proposals that general Court should have at least one woman on it. I am much obliged for what
the right hon. Gentleman has said, and we shall watch with interest the Report stage to see whether the undertaking which he has been good enough to give has been carried out to the satisfaction of those who have the interest of women workers at heart.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Reference of Disputes to Industrial Court or to Arbitration.)

(1) Any trade dispute as defined by this Act, whether existing or apprehended, may be reported to the Minister by or on behalf of either of the parties to the dispute, and the Minister shall thereupon take the matter into his consideration and take such steps as seem to him expedient for promoting a settlement thereof.
(2) Where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, if he thinks fit and if both parties consent, refer the matter for settlement to the Industrial Court.
(3) The Minister may refer to the Industrial Court for advice any matter relating to or arising out of a trade dispute, or trade disputes of any class, or any other matter which in his opinion ought to be so referred.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "may" ["the Minister may, if he thinks fit"], insert the words "subject as hereinafter provided."

After the word "consent" ["parties consent, refer the matter"] insert the words "either (a)."—[Sir B. Horne.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
or (b) refer the matter for settlement to the arbitration of one or more persons appointed by him, or (c) refer the matter for settlement to a board of arbitration consisting of one or more persons nominated by or on behalf of the employers concerned, an equal number of persons nominated by or on behalf of the workman concerned, and an independent chairman nominated by the Minister.
That is, in effect, to give a free choice between the methods they shall adopt, either conciliation or arbitration. A proviso which is to be moved later keeps the machinery distinct.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the words last added, insert the words
Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative, respectively, of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the
Minister shall not, unless with the consent of both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section."— [Mr. Griffiths.]

Captain COOTE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words
Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a trade dispute relates solely to agricultural employment or non-employment in England or Wales, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who may thereupon exercise in relation to the trade dispute the power of the Minister under the preceding Sub-section of this Clause.
I hope the Committee will not think that the moving of this Amendment is mere pertinacity on my part.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. May I ask how this Amendment comes before one in my name, which would include the reference in this Amendment? Mine is a general reference in the case of any Government Department. The Amendment just moved by the hon. and gallant Member is a reference to one Department only.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The Chair decides the order of the Amendments.

Mr. HOGGE: But that does not explain why my Amendment was not taken first.

Captain COOTE: In reply to a query which I raised earlier I received a noncommittal movement of the head from the right hon. Gentleman, and I could not decide whether it was a horizontal or a perpendicular movement. I move this Amendment because of the peculiar position of agriculture in relation to this Bill. The Board of Agriculture is admittedly the Department which should have charge of conciliations and all arrangements in connection with agricultural disputes. That is admitted. As a matter of fact the Board is already setting up throughout the country Conciliation Committees to deal with agricultural disputes, and I suggest that some such procedure as I have outlined should be employed. The answer to that, obviously, would be that if this Amendment is accepted the right hon. Gentleman will be put in a difficulty by reason of the complaints which will be made to him by his colleagues in other Departments, who will demand similar concessions for those Departments. Take the Post Office or the Ministry of Transport. They are public services; they are
directly concerned in the industry which they actually govern. But the Board of Agriculture is in a different position. It is not, in my opinion, and it ought not to be considered, representative merely of farmers. It ought to be representative of all sides in the industry, both farmers and labourers. That is the position which I think it ought to take. It ought to be given the chance under this Bill to play the part which it claims to be able to play. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that this point will be considered, and if I do not press it now I should hope for favourable consideration before the Report stage is reached.

Sir R. HORNE: The Amendment in its present form is altogether too wide, and I could not accept it. It not only proposes that the preliminary inquiry which is part of the scheme should be conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture in the case of agricultural topics, but that thereafter he should exercise all the functions of the Ministry in relation to the Industrial Court and any scheme of arbitration which may be adopted. That is going directly contrary to the provisions of the earlier part of this Bill. There is, however, a great anomaly in the present position of agriculture in this country compared with other industrial pursuits. For example, the question of wages is taken entirely out of the hands of the ordinary machinery of this country for dealing with wages, and put into the care of Agricultural Wages Boards. To that extent the functions of the Ministry of Labour are infringed upon by the arrangement which exists. I think that that circumstance may give rise to the necessity of making some working arrangement with the Board of Agriculture, and I should be glad to consider what can be done before we come to the Report stage.

Mr. CLYNES: I should like to refer to what has been said on this point. We have been told of the: very great difficulty in which the Minister for Labour would be put if the duty were pressed upon him of saying that a dispute relating solely to agriculture or matters connected with it was a dispute that should be referred to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Any legislation of this kind should be in the direction of simplification and to reduce the complicated machinery which may now exist and as it is expressed in different Departments. We have had any number of instances in the past few years
where men have been referred from one Department to another and from one section of a Department to another section of the same Department, so that they have become not only bewildered but angry at the inability to understand with whom they had to deal. In all business there is a very great advantage in knowing, to begin with, the parties with whom you have to deal. I suggest, even if this matter could be considered on Report, that the Board of Agriculture has not at present the machinery in existence wherewith to deal with questions of this kind. That Department would have to be set up, and the hands of the Ministry are full enough with many other matters of national interest without having to take on more troubles in respect of the labour and industrial, side. May I suggest what in my opinion is the strongest reason for not pressing this proposal? Within the last few years agricultural workers have become organised to a very great extent, as well as other industrial workers, and they would resent very strongly being separated and separately treated under conditions different from those of the general body of industrial workers. So I think it is highly undesirable that any view of this kind should be proposed, and I hope there will be no endeavour, even on a later stage of this Bill, to take any step which would cause serious difference between, one Department and another, and which, incidentally, would separate one great body of workers from the others.

Captain COOTE: I have not the slightest intention of desiring to see agriculture treated in a different manner from that of any other industry. My object was to secure that the factors of any dispute should be crystallised as far as possible, because the Board of Agriculture has hitherto always dealt with the industry as a whole, and the Ministry of Labour has not. Therefore I thought that it would be more satisfactory to the workers themselves that that Act should continue to be treated by the Board of Agriculture, with whom they were in more or less friendly relations. In view of the assurance that has been given by the Ministry of Labour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words
(3) Where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended in any industry in which any Govern-
ment Department is directly or indirectly the employer, the Minister shall refer the matter for settlement to the Industrial Court.
The reason I move is, that in my view the matter of the relationship of workmen employed by the State is in an entirely different category from that of workmen who are working for individual employers. I am not suggesting generally that in the case of a dispute there should be compulsory arbitration between an employer and his voluntary workmen, but I am suggesting that the Government ought to take up a different attitude to its own employés. I am asking that in fill cases of disputes where the Government are the employers, that those disputes should be referred to the Industrial Courts. There is a very great distinction in the two types of employés. Men who are employed by the Government have certain privileges with regard to the nature of their employment, and the conditions are different from the case of employés who sell their labour in the open markets. As many of these Government employés are working in national services which have a great deal to do with the interests of the community, it is obvious that the Government must face this question, which in my view is the most important question we have to discuss on the Bill—namely, the relationship of the Government to their own employé. Not only have the employés special conditions, but large political influence is exercised by everybody of Government employés. Those of us who have gone through the mill of elections in this country know that that is very true, and that over and over again our own employés in the Post Office, to take only one example, bring the political pressure of their votes to bear upon all candidates in order that their industrial conditions should be improved, and I look forward to the future with a considerable amount of trepidation if there are going to be large bodies of Government employés who are going to be put into this position. The recent railway strike was an excellent example of what I mean. I have every sympathy in the world with the raising of the industrial conditions of the class that we call the working class; I have every sympathy with their wages being raised to meet the economic needs of the situation; but while that is so as an ordinary member of the general public who employ those men and who use the services sup-
plied by those men, I want us to face the situation of being held up in the power of those particular employés.
One Minister of the Crown, I think it was the Minister of Food, remarked with regard to the railway strike, that one of the reasons why it was not settled quickly was that all the cards were not placed upon the table. I am not intimately enough acquainted with both sides of the dispute to know whether that is right or not, but what I am attempting now to do is to perform the function of the ordinary member of the general public who is outside those unions and who has to put up with the inconveniences either on the part of the Government who lock out their men, or on the part of the men who strike. I want, therefore, by this Amendment to understand the Government attitude towards their own employés in reference to the general public, and I am suggesting that in every case in which the Government is an employer of labour the dispute when it exists or when it is apprehended shall be referred for settlement to the Industrial Court. The result will be, of course, that there will be a public hearing of the case, and the public will understand the exact situation. In the recent railway strike we had all kinds of statements thrown about by members of the Railway-men's Union and by the Prime Minister. For instance, it will be in the recollection of this House that the Prime Minister said that the railway dispute was due to an anarchist conspiracy. I have his precise words here, which are worth recalling in this connection. What the Prime Minister said at the time of the railway dispute was that
The Government have reason to believe that it had been engineered for some time by a small but active body of men who wrought tirelessly and insidiously to exploit the labour organisations of this country for subversive ends. I am convinced that the vast majority of the trade unionists of the land are opposed to this anarchist conspiracy.
In other words, the Prime Minister, with that looseness of phrase and general attitude towards meticulous statement, suggested that this particular strike was the work of Anarchist conspirators. I believe that he left out of that category Members like my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), with whom he is in consultation now on railway matters, because I cannot imagine that the negotiations which are going on in the railway world with the Govern-
ment are being conducted between the Prime Minister and Anarchists. But, after all, we belong to the great mass of the general public, and the general public has as much right to be protected against the Railwaymen's Union as against the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister, in the course of a great dispute of that kind, goes out of his way to throw charges of that kind against a body of men with whom he is now collaborating in order to come to some sort of arrangement, the general public ought to know whether these things are true or not. I do not believe they are true. I believe that the Prime Minister knows they are not true. I believe he made a gross misstatement of the fact when he stated to the country that there was any such conspiracy. We have one of the Law Officers of the Crown present, and perhaps he will tell us what the Government are going to do with regard to men of that kind who took part in this Anarchist conspiracy. If we have a public hearing by the Industrial Court, these facts will be made quite plain to the country, and we shall have an end of this secret diplomacy in industrial matters as well as in other matters. My Friends the Labour members of the Opposition are, like myself, opposed to all secret diplomacy in foreign affairs, and I hope they will agree with me that in large industrial issues those of us who are not members of the trade unions, but who are members of the general public, have every right to have access to everything that is being discussed. The more publicity you can get on industrial questions, the greater industrial peace you will get, just as you will get your peace of the world if you will get rid of secret diplomacy.
It is a pity we are discussing this Amendment in a thin House, because it is a very important Amendment. There are, for instance, large schemes of nationalisation in the air. It has been suggested in the Debate in this House that the coal industry is to be the next subject for nationalisation, and I may say at once that if ever that issue arose in this House I should at once vote in favour of the nationalisation of the coal industry. I say that now to explain the remarks I may be going to make.

Mr. SHAW: Does the hon. Member's leader think the same?

Mr. HOGGE: Let me say at once that I have not got any leader. I sit on this
bench, under the chairmanship of a Sessional chairman, like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who is the Sessional chairman of the Labour party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is the Sessional chairman of the party to which I belong. He is my chairman in the House; I work and act with him, but I have no leader. Unlike my hon. Friend opposite, I do not mean to have. He requires two leaders and a coupon in addition.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member had perhaps better give a little more time to the Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE: I might not have been betrayed into making that speech if you had called my right hon. Friend to order for his interruption. Supposing coal were nationalised to-morrow, the State would be employing the coal miners, and if the railways were nationalised to-morrow, the State would be employing the railwaymen. Supposing these men, like the Post Office servants, have a dispute. Are they to be entitled with their peculiar rights towards the State to the same rights as all other men who are employed outside? I cannot see how they are to be if the State is to be protected against itself. I shall be glad to know what the view of the Government is with regard to that situation. My Amendment is quite clear in that case. I say in every such case the dispute ought to be referred to an Industrial Court.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not quite sure whether the Amendment was put down seriously for acceptance, or whether it was put down with a view of giving my hon. Friend an opportunity of discussing the railway strike. I am inclined to believe it was the latter, because I cannot quite conceive such a distinguished representative of the Wee Free party being the champion of denying to any section of the working classes their political rights. Let us clearly understand that the effect of this Amendment, if accepted, which I am quite sure it will not be, by the House, would be not only utterly to destroy the principle upon which this Bill is based, but to introduce into this country for the first time the principle of compulsory arbitration. If that is to be one of the new planks of my hon. Friend's party programme, I wish him luck in his propaganda, but at all events he may know
right away that, so far as the Labour party is concerned it will receive no blessing or help either from those inside the House or those outside the House. My hon. Friend referred to some statement made by the Minister of Food. I have, a distinct recollection of many statements made by the Minister of Food, and I can only conclude that the one to which he referred was as foreign to the facts as some of the others I happened to read myself. But the real point we are discussing at this moment is whether any employé who for the moment is the servant directly or indirectly of the State shall be denied the ordinary and only protection that the working classes possess in this country, namely, the right to sell their labour to the highest bidder. That, shortly, is the issue, because if it is wrong for the Government servant to have the power to withhold his labour, it is equally wrong for the municipal employé to exercise his citizen rights. There is no difference between the municipal employé in his relationship to the municipality and the Government employé in his relationship to the State, and I do submit that, so far as the Government employés are concerned, they are not now treated better in Government Departments than are workers by private employers. As a matter of fact, there are a large number of State employés to-day who find themselves working under conditions that are not so favourable as those of private employés.
The second point one has to consider is the statement with regard to political influences. I submit that there is one answer to all this, and it is that the working classes are as honest as any other section of the community. There is no monopoly of vice or of virtue in any section of the people, and we are entitled to claim that the British working man is as good a citizen, is as honest a citizen, as any other class of the community. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) says, "Hear, hear!" but his Amendment clearly implies that they are not, and his statement clearly implied that they were not, because he asked what is to become of the ordinary Member of Parliament if he is to be subjected to the pressure of the miners, the railwaymen, the Post Office employés, and so on? What does that mean? It means that my hon. Friend believes that if the majority of the people in Edinburgh were State employés they would make it very uncomfortable for him as a Member of this House.

Mr. HOGGE: They do now.

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend says they do now, and, therefore, being an honest politician, he wants to deprive them of the opportunity in a backdoor way, and I hope his Constituents will clearly note how much ho resents their anxiety that he should do his duty in this House. Because, after all, that is exactly what political pressure means; and I submit it is far better for the Government employé to say to his Member of Parliament, "As a public representative you have, in a constitutional way, a method whereby you can redress my grievance," and I submit it is-far better for him to use that method than it is for him even to strike. Yet not only did my hon. Friend want to deny them the right to strike, but, in addition, the right to bring any political influence to bear upon their Member. This is a new doctrine of Liberalism which is passing from stage to stage, and I can only conclude it is not only the latest development, but it is the last word from one of its chief exponents. At all events, I am glad to have had this opportunity of knowing where my hon. Friend stands, and I hope he will press the Amendment to a Division, so that he will be able to know, not only how many members of his own party support him, but how many adherents he has in the House.

Sir E. POLLOCK: In spite of much temptation, I shall attempt to confine myself in the remarks I have to make to-the Amendment. Sometimes one is called upon to make an after-dinner speech for which it is difficult to find a subject, but the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has invited me to make a speech before dinner, and has given me every possible subject to which I could address myself—the Prime Minister, the Food Controller, his own Parliamentary position, the nationalisation of mines, Parliamentary procedure, Parliamentary leadership, the railway strike, and so on. All these offer congenial topics after dinner, but not before, and therefore I shall attempt to confine myself to saying a word or two about the Amendment itself. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), this Amendment introduces a form of compulsion, and in particular cases, where particular persons are concerned, it insists upon an arbitration under the Act. As my right hon. Friend was most careful to point out, the basis
of the Bill now before us is that it should not be other than voluntary. We hope it will not be less effective. We hope to procure by good will what we would probably fail to secure by anything less. It is intended to be voluntary. It would be unfortunate if, by putting in a Clause such us this, it should savour of any other method. It is suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) that it may be legitimately made compulsory. He distinguishes between the employés in a Government Department and others who are not so engaged. I do not think it would be at all just or fair to insist on that in connection with the employés in Government Departments, or to suggest that there is ground why they should lose some of their rights. I do not know why they should be treated differently from other employés. For my own part, I think it would be very wrong to differentiate Government employés from others in this matter. Widely as my hon. Friend opposite drew his illustrations, and large as was the area from which he drew support for this Amendment, he gave me no ground, or any just cause, for treating employés in Government Departments otherwise than others.
He suggested also the question of political influence, arguments against which were expressed so well by the right hon. Member for Derby. It would be very wrong indeed to impute to the employés in a Government Department the exercise of this, or to say that they unfairly took advantage of their position. I think that quite unfair and a slur upon them which they do not deserve. It is only for the purpose of making it quite plain the view I hold is the same as the one expressed by the right hon. Member for Derby that I say what I have said. Having pointed out that the Amendment is really a compulsory Clause, and that there is no ground for separating these particular employés from others, I hope the Committee will be good enough, if the Amendment is not withdrawn, to support the Government.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think, with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby—who, I am sorry, has left the House—that he has misunderstood the reason for putting forward this Amendment, and the purpose of it. Unless I am mistaken—I did not quite hear the whole of my hon. Friend's speech—ho is not in any way differentiat-
ing in this Amendment from the Government employé and the private employé but he does differentiate between the private employer and the Government as an employer. That is the intention, and I think it is very reasonable. If I am in order, might I refer to Clause 10, which deals very much with this sort of question? It says:
This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval, military, or air services of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to workmen employed by or under the Crown in the same manner as if they were employed by or under a private person.
9.0 P.M
The Solicitor-General points out that the Amendment is suggested compulsion on a Government Department. That is so; and really I think it is reasonable. Surely, the Government are only too willing to set an example under this Act! They will surely be prepared always to submit to this voluntary arbitration! It is open to the Government employé, the Government servant, not to accept the findings of the Court. The Amendment gives a Government employé the right to have his case tried by what we hope will he an impartial tribunal, whereas at present I do not think the Government always is an impartial tribunal. It is the fact that private employés and workmen are bettor treated than many Government servants. For example, take the Whitley scheme. Government Departments have been extraordinarily slow to adopt the Whitley Councils; in fact, they are still "sticky"—if I may use that word—about the Whitley Councils. They did not lead the way in establishing Whitley Councils in the past, and the Government have been very slow indeed to recognise the right of combination on the part of their employés. We know the difficulties in connection with the police in this matter. I am not for a moment making an attack on the settlement; but the Government have not been from the start keen to recognise any independent union amongst the police. I think Government employés really do need a safeguard; and unless this Amendment is accepted it, will be open to the Government Departments to refuse arbitration to their employés. It is also open to employers of labour in private life to do the same. Nevertheless, I think public opinion will probably have a greater effect upon them than on a powerful Government Department. Therefore, I am very much inclined to support this Amendment. I do not think it inter-
feres in any way with the Government employé, who has every liberty to dispose of his labour just as if he were a private employé, but it gives him a safeguard whenever he is involved in a trade dispute with the Government that he is not going to be told that "this is a threat of a strike against the people," and "he is taking the life-blood of tae community." At any rate, he is safeguarded by having an open, a public, and, as we all hope, an impartial inquiry. The Amendment is most valuable. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, as I think quite honestly, misunderstood the meaning of it.

Mr. HENDERSON: I want to appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh to withdraw the Amendment. I do so from an entirely different standpoint to that so far urged. Some members of the Committee will recollect that this question of dealing with Government employés has had special treatment in the constitution of a Court which deals with their cases. This Court was set up by the War Cabinet when I was a member of it. I had a good deal to do with setting up that Court. It deals with a large number of cases, and I think, on the whole, it has given satisfaction. I should be very disappointed at this stage if, either by putting a Clause in the Bill or the Amendment of my hon. Friend, we should in any way interfere with the work of that Court. Apart from that, I desire to have it made clear by the Solicitor-General as to whether this Bill in any way is going to interfere with that special Court. A friend of mine, Mr. Gosling, has been a member of it from the first. He has been very devoted to the work. I do not know who is chairman now, but the then Member for Derby (Dr. Collins) used to be chairman, and I think the third member was the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway, Sir A. Kaye Butter-worth. I hope we shall have an assurance, even although my hon. Friend does not press his Amendment, that the Court to which I am referring, which deals with the case of the Civil servant, is not in any way going to be interfered with; for I know the difficulty we had in getting that Court established.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Perhaps I may be allowed to give the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has asked for, that the Court he has mentioned is in no way interfered with.

Mr. HOGGE: Before I withdraw this Amendment may I say that obviously we cannot have a Division. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?!"] The reason is that if you have a Division on an Amendment when a majority of those voting have not heard the Debate, it is useless, although I would willingly go through the Division Lobby with the hon. Members who have heard the Debate. I think this subject is much more important than the time given to it would suggest or even the arguments used against it. I repeat that you would have never had the recent railway strike if there had been some kind of machinery to which the dispute could have been referred. You had that strike because of the absence of that machinery, with the result that the entire community were inconvenienced. I am looking forward to the time when large bodies of labour in this country will be employed nationally, and I am asking where the rest of us are going to be placed if we are not protected. I am in the same position as my right hon. and learned Friend opposite of still speaking before dinner, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to Sub-section (3), which reads:
The Minister may refer to the Industrial Court for advice any matter relating to or arising out of a trade dispute.
These words are very similar to the words found in the Report of the Joint Committee of the Industrial Conference, but in that Report it was suggested both by employers and trade unionists that the advice had to come from the National Industrial Council. Are we to assume that the Minister has given up hope that we shall bring such a Council into being, and if not, is he going to have advice from the National Industrial Council when it is created, and advice also from this Court when it is set up? The advice that he gets from such a Court cannot carry with it the same influence and weight as would come from the National Industrial Council. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks this Sub-section is of such value that he must retain it in the Bill, but I hope he will withdraw it and leave the position as it stands in the Report to which I have referred, in the hope that
when we get over one difficulty to which I need not refer now, and which the right hon. Gentleman knows about, we may get the National Industrial Council brought into being, and that it will serve the purpose of giving the Government advice as laid down in the Report, which found acceptance with the great body of employers who attended the Industrial Conference over which the right hon. Gentleman presided.

Sir R. HORNE: I ought to say at once that I am looking with great hopes to the setting up of the National Industrial Council and the prospect of getting advice from it upon all the matters with which they are so competent to deal. There may be different topics which are more easily dealt with by the Industrial Court. I do not anticipate there will be many such topics, but I think it is better that one should keep the door open for obtaining the advice of this Court where it may be required. I am certain that with regard to labour matters in general the advice the Minister will require would more often be obtained from the National Industrial Council than from the Industrial Court, but I do not think I ought to close the opportunity of getting information from the Industrial Court if such an occasion arises.

Mr. CLYNES: There is a close relationship between this Clause and Part II. of the Bill dealing with the question of the Courts of Inquiry. As I understand Part II., it proposes to institute a system of inquiry. I conclude that the object of an inquiry must be that of securing a settlement of disputes without a stoppage of work, and that that settlement will be provided in the main through the decisions of the Court of Arbitration. Clause 2, which we are now considering, refers to these Courts of Arbitration and the powers the Minister may exercise in relation to them. What I wish to ask is what does the Minister understand by the relation of Clause 2 and Part II. of the; Bill in this respect? How far will this part of the Bill dealing with inquiry be used in order to make inquiry the medium for conveying cases to the Court of Arbitration? Take, for example, Part II. of the Bill, which seems to lead us nowhere except to the publicity reports which are to become public property, and surely it is not intended to stop that? I think there must be some businesslike relationship between what I call inquiry and the conduct of Courts of Arbi-
tration, and if my right hon. Friend will explain that relationship we may be able to allow this Clause to pass.

Mr. HODGE: I think we ought to delete this Sub-section-, and rely more upon the work and advice of the Industrial Council.

Sir R. HORNE: Hon. Members need have no apprehension with regard to the obtaining or advice from the Industrial Court, that it will clash with their proper function in deciding cases that come before them. The relationship with the Court of Inquiry that my right, hon. Friend has asked about is really tins: You could never get the parties before you in the Industrial Court unless they both consented to come. Therefore, it may prove where both parties are recalcitrant that you cannot get the Court to work at all. There are other cases where it is absolutely essential that the light of day should be thrown upon the dispute in order that public opinion may be formed on the matter at issue, and that public opinion may bring the parties to their senses and compel in some instances an harmonious settlement. A Court of Inquiry can be moved by the Minister alone. If he thinks that it is a case for inquiry, he can institute an inquiry without requiring the consent of both parties. The Court of Inquiry having obtained the necessary information, may make a recommendation, but, obviously, it can give no decision. It publishes the information upon which the public may judge. I imagine that a quite common form of recommendation that you would got would be that it was eminently a matter which was suitable for the Industrial Court to deal with, and that the parties should appear before that Court to have the matter brought to a final settlement. These are two totally different functions, but both of them are very valuable, and, accordingly, I desire to retain them both in this measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3. (Procedure of Industrial Court and on Arbitrations.)

(1) The Minister may make, or authorise the Industrial Court to make, rules regulating the procedure of that Court, and those rules may, amongst other things, provide for references in certain cases to a single member of the Court and may apply, with any necessary modifications, any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and provide for enabling the Court to sit in two or more divisions, and to sit with assessors, for enabling the Court or any division
167
of the Court to act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and for enabling questions as to the interpretation of any award to be settled without any fresh report or reference.
(2) The Minister way make rules regulating the procedure to be followed in cases where matters are referred for settlement to the arbitration of one or more persons appointed by the Minister, and those rules may apply with any necessary modifications any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889.
(3) Subject as hereinbefore provided the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any reference to the Industrial Court, or to any reference to arbitration under this Act.
(4) Where the members of the Industrial Court are unable to agree as to their award, the matter shall be decided by the chairman acting with the full powers of an umpire.
(5) Where any trade dispute referred to the Industrial Court involves questions as to wages, or as to hours of work, or otherwise as to the terms or conditions of or affecting employment which are regulated by any Act other than this Act, the Court shall not make any award which is inconsistent with the provisions of that, Act.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
and those rules may, amongst other things, provide for references in certain cases to a single member of the Court and may apply, with any necessary modifications, any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and provide for enabling the Court to sit in two or more divisions, and to sit with assessors, for enabling the Court or any division of the Court to act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number.
The object of this and one or two other Amendments following is to take out of this Clause all reference to the Arbitration Act, 1889. As I understand the position, the right hon. Gentleman has partly met our objection. I am not sure that he has fully met it, but, if he has, then I will not take the matter further. We want the first Sub-section of Clause 3 to read:
The Minister may make, or authorise the Industrial Court to make, rules regulating the procedure of that Court, and for enabling questions as to the interpretation of any award to be settled without any fresh report or reference.
That would take out everything connected with the Act of 1889. Our reason for desiring to do so is that, so far as we know, this is the first time that an attempt has been made to apply this Act to industrial questions. We do not know of any case where it has been done before. In most cases during the time that I have been in the House we said that the Act shall not apply. We believe that the effect of applying the Act would be to subject such cases being dealt with in a Civil Court. That is the last thing that we want, and I think possibly that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman has the same inten-
tion as my own. If so, we need not press the matter further, but in order to ascertain, I beg to move.

Sir R. HORNE: My right hon. Friend has quite correctly interpreted my intention. The effect of the Amendment which I have is to take out all reference to the Arbitration Act except in Sub-section (3), which reads,
Subject as hereinbefore provided the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any reference to the Industrial Court or to any reference to arbitration under this Act.
Therefore, the effect of my Amendment would be to cut it out altogether. My right hon. Friend's Amendment would cut out more words than are necessary. Some of them, undoubtedly, should remain, because they are necessary for the purpose which I have already explained. The words to which I refer are,
and provide for enabling the Court to sit in two or more divisions and to sit with, assessors.
My right hon. Friend agrees that is part of the scheme. The Amendment which I have would cut out all reference to the Arbitration Act except words negativing its use in connection with these processes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "and may apply, with any necessary modifications, any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far has shown that he proposes to take out of Sub-section (2) all reference to the provisions of the Act of 1889. If that be so, I would like to put a point with respect to the other part of the Sub-section which refers to the rules which are to be framed regulating the procedure to be followed in these various cases. A great deal depends upon these Rules. I have no doubt that the Rules in such a Court will have to be the result to a great extent of experience, but they will be read by the trade unions in conjunction with the Act itself, and it is advisable that we should let them know clearly what are the intentions and should be able to let them see that there is nothing up the right hon. Gentleman's sleeve. I should, therefore, be obliged to him to give us an outline as to what these-Rules are likely to be.

Sir R. HORNE: I propose to leave out the words, "and those Rules may apply with any necessary modifications any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889," and to let the preceding words stand. My right hon. Friend may take it that these Rules will not involve anything more than the ordinary routine Rules of procedure. They will embrace nothing which can have any sort of legal compulsion as against people outside the Court. All that is intended is that the Court should be carried on in a regular fashion according to general principles such as must be observed in any Court if it is to gain the confidence of anybody. This same power has been taken in every case that I have ever known of any Arbitration Court or of any body dealing in a judicial capacity with any matter coming before it. My right hon. Friend may take it that these Rules will be entirely innocuous from his point of view, and will only relate to the regularised procedure.

Major GREAME: I hope that in the case of Regulations made under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will take the opportunity of consulting representatives of both employers' and employed organisations, because, although there may be nothing much, in the Rules, both sides would like to know exactly what they are and how they are affected by them. I think, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that that practice will be followed it will give much satisfaction.

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be very glad to follow the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "and those rules may apply with any necessary modifications any of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889."

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "subject as hereinbefore provided."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Inquiry into Trade Disputes.)

(1) Where any trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, whether, or not the dispute is reported to him under Part I. of this Act, inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute, and, if he thinks fit, refer any matters appearing to him to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court
170
of Inquiry appointed by him for the purpose of such reference, and the Court shall inquire into the matters referred to them and report thereon to the Minister.
(2) A Court of Inquiry for the purposes of this Part of this Act (in this Act referred to as "a Court of Inquiry") shall consist of a chair man and such other persons as the Minister thinks fit to appoint, or may if the Minister thinks fit consist of one person appointed by the Minister.
(3) A Court of Inquiry may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number.
(4) The Minister may make rules regulating the procedure of any Court of Inquiry, including rules as to summoning of witnesses, production of documents, quorum, authentication of documents, the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor, and the appointment of committees.
(5) A Court of Inquiry may, if and to such extent as may be authorised by rules made under this Section, by order require the production of any books, papers, and other documents relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry, and require any person who appears to the Court to have any knowledge of that subject matter to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars in relation thereto as the Court may require, and, where necessary, to attend before the Court and give evidence on oath, and the Court may administer or authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose.

If any person fails to comply with any Order of the Court under this Sub-section, or furnishes any particulars which are false or misleading or gives any evidence which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or is apprehended."
We do not wish to give the Minister power to interfere before direct negotiations have taken place between the parties concerned. Further, we desire that in all cases of dispute they should come before the Industrial Court, and that being so there is a fear in our minds that if we allow a discussion to go on at the same time there might be dissatisfaction caused. We do not want a Court to be set up when negotiations are taking place, but in the event of the negotiations breaking down in relation to the first Court, then there will be an opportunity for negotiations under the second heading. I think before any action is taken under this Clause, and when a Minister thinks a trade dispute is not likely to be settled, he can fall back on the Clause which has already been passed, and under these circumstances I suggest that these words should be left out.

Sir R. HORNE: I appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend has said in rela-
tion to this Clause, and I think I can assure him that no one is likely to interfere while negotiations are still in progress or even when the negotiations have a chance of being broken off. In framing the Clause in this form I have followed the words already sanctioned in an Act which has been referred to many times tonight—I mean the Conciliation Act, which expresses the situation in precisely the same form as I have proposed it there. It says, in fact, that where a dispute exists or is apprehended the Board of Trade shall do certain things. I think it is very proper we should have that power, because very often prevention is better than cure, and if there is an opportunity for a Minister to interfere at a time when he might alleviate a situation which is being gradually inflamed, he might do much more good than if he left the matter to simmer and then boil up. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I am certain he can rely on the discretion of Ministers not to interfere unnecessarily or prematurely.

Mr. CLYNES: I agree with the argument submitted by my right hon. Friend, but I would like to suggest to him that there is another point of view. Still, if he cannot see his way to delete these words by accepting our Amendment, will he give us some assurance that at least during his term of office, which we trust may be long, he will set an example to his successors. What we desire is to secure the minimum of State interference between employers and employed, while preserving the maximum of peace between them. That is the situation which is generally desired, and we are rather afraid that a State Department might get into the habit of mind of regarding it as its business, on hearing a rumour of some movement or claim for wages, or some application for changed conditions to at once set its machinery working and to begin to interfere when interference might do, not good, but harm. There is a danger of that, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit. I do not suspect that he himself is likely to do this thing, but these words have in them some element of danger, and I think we may ask him for some assurance that in practice it would not be regarded as the business of the Ministry of Labour to interfere at a point which would interrupt efforts to
settle matters on the lines usually followed by the parties, or in any way to make the contending parties feel the State is stepping in long before its services are required or likely to be useful.

Mr. HAILWOOD: There is another side to this question of the Minister refraining from interfering. There might sometimes be cases where the parties to the dispute are of opinion that it is better to go on strike in order that the Government may interfere. We have had examples of cases where negotiations have been broken off in the hope that the Government will interfere, but the Government have not interfered until the strike has actually taken place. I think the Government should have power to exercise its discretion of interfering before the strike does occur. The words used here are "trade disputes," and I think it is essential that the Government should interfere in the early stages and make itself au fait with all the facts and try to prevent the dispute developing into a strike.

Sir R. HORNE: I think I can assure my right hon. Friend opposite that any body who has had sufficient experience in these matters would be very glad to follow the course he has laid down.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "whether or not the dispute is," and to insert instead thereof the words "if the dispute has not been."
Our position in this matter is that the Minister should take no action until the decision of the other Court has been made known. We do not desire that the Minister should interfere in this connection with anything that has been taking place.

Sir R. HORNE: One of the important factors with regard to the Courts of Inquiry is that the Minister should be able to interfere even if the matter has not been reported to him by one of the parties concerned in the dispute, if he has to wait for a report, sometimes the occasion for his best interference may have passed. The same considerations which applied in connection with the previous Amendment seems to apply also in this case, and I hope my hon. Friend, in view of the attitude of the Committee on the previous Amendment, will not press this one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the next Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes, has been disposed of by the decision of the Committee on Clause 1.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["and the Court shall inquire"] to insert the words "either in public or in private at their discretion."
This Amendment gives the Court of Inquiry the option of holding the inquiry either in public or in private. Hon Members will see that under Clause 5 a Court of Inquiry has power to make interim reports. After they have made an interim report it is immediately laid before both Houses of Parliament and becomes public property. If the Court of Inquiry has power to make public its interim reports, I do not see why it should not also have the discretion to hold the inquiry in public. It is a very important Court and we want to give it as much discretion as possible. In certain, circumstances it may be very advisable that the inquiry should be held in public. As the Bill stands the Minister alone has the power to make rules and orders for the procedure of the Court of Inquiry, therefore he will have power to say that the inquiry must be held in private only. As we are giving the Court of Inquiry power to publish interim reports it is rather inconsistent to prevent it holding the inquiry in public if it thinks fit to do so.

Sir R. HORNE: I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with the reasons for it he has put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "consist of a chairman and such other persons as the Minister thinks fit to appoint, or may if the Minister think fit consist of one person appointed by the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "be constituted in like manner to an Industrial Court under Part I. of this Act."
This is the Amendment which the Deputy-Chairman suggested had been dealt with on Clause 1. Our object in seeking to move the series of Amendments standing in my name is to try to bring the constitution of the Court of Inquiry into line with what we endeavoured to bring about on Clause 1. The Minister
has met us on Clause I to the extent that he has promised to continue the panel system. While we are anxious to secure the retention of the panel system in connection with Part I. of the Bill, we are also anxious to secure the appointments to the Court of Inquiry from some sort of panel as has been accepted in connection with the earlier Clause of the Bill. I can imagine that these Courts of Inquiry, properly constituted and securing the confidence of all the parties concerned, might serve a very useful purpose, but if they are to be useful there must be a feeling on the part of the workmen that those appointed possess in some degree the practical knowledge and experience to enable them to conduct the inquiry as it ought to be conducted, if a dispute is going to be warded off and if any points of difference between the employers and the organisation are going to be brought to a mutual and satisfactory arrangement. I understand that that point has not been disposed of in connection with Clause 1. If anything, I think the Minister has met us, and that is a justification for our asking that he will reconsider his decision, because all that this Clause does is to give him the power of referring a dispute to a Court of Inquiry, without saying anything as to the quarter from whence the members of the Court of Inquiry are to be drawn. They are to consist of such persons as the Minister thinks fit to appoint. If, as he has already admitted with regard to a Court of Arbitration, that has to give an actual decision which the parties on both sides are bound to honour and observe, surely in the case of an inquiry which is to be instituted into some difficulty, we are right in asking that he should meet us by having some sort of panel in whom all parties will have confidence—the chairman's panel, the employers' panel, and the workmen's panel from whom he makes his selection.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I thought at first that this Amendment referred to Amendments of which we had already disposed, but it may possibly stand by itself. So I will put it to the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE: The Amendment could not be carried in its present state, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has moved it with the intention of getting some assurance from me as to the constitution of the Courts of Inquiry. I perfectly agree with him that unless a Court
of inquiry is composed in such a way as to obtain the confidence of both parties to a dispute it would be useless, and the public would have no confidence in a Court whose members were mostly in ignorance of the matter which they had come together to discuss. Accordingly it is plain that the Court must comprise people who know both the employers' and the workmen's point of view, and to that extent I am perfectly prepared to give my direct assurance. As to the precise form of the constitution I am not prepared at this moment to speak, because one of my great hopes with regard to the National Industrial Council has been that we should find in the constitution of these bodies the kind of people on both sides who would form the very best Court you could constitute for the purpose of making the necessary inquiry. One would not like to tie one's hands at this stage to the setting up of particular panels. My desire is to make such a Court of Inquiry as would really represent the people on both sides and obtain confidence. Whether that requires to be put in in definite shape I shall consider between now and Wednesday if the right hon. Gentleman will leave it at that for the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).
As far as I know this is quite a new feature in connection with Courts dealing with such matters. If the Court is to consist of an unlimited number of persons and we are left in the dark as to who these persons will be, we are entitled to some statement as to what this Subsection means. There must be, I suppose, some definite reason for putting in so pointed a statement and we should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir R. HORNE: The only object we had in putting in this Sub-section was to provide against things which happen not infrequently—people falling ill or even dying. It would be a very unfortunate result if in the middle of an important Inquiry some member fell ill and the Court had entirely to suspend its operations and. discussions. Time really is of the essence of the actions of these Courts of Inquiry, and it was from the point of view of safeguarding that position, so that there should be no doubt the Court would still
go on though one of its members fell out, that we put it in and I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the reasonableness of that proposal. There is certainly no sinister motive behind it whatsoever.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: From the point of view of the general public as well as of the trade unions, this Sub-section might well be left out. Surely in the case of a member of the Court falling ill someone might be co-opted in his place. It seems to me we are laying ourselves open to serious trouble. The right hon. Gentleman only mentions death and illness, but there might be other reasons why the number would not be complete. I am sure that will at once lead to suspicion. It seems to me to be rather a dangerous Sub-section. If there is so little in it, why cannot it be left out? Certainly it struck me when I read the Bill as being very extraordinary. The Bill would be better received outside the House if the Sub-section were left out.

Mr. D. HERBERT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has adduced the greatest argument possible in favour of retaining the Sub-section, because the introduction of another member to this body in the middle of its proceedings might be most inadvisable and calculated to arouse suspicion. It seems to me that this is necessary in order to provide against the possibility of a vacancy occurring towards the end of an inquiry when all the evidence has been heard, and the whole matter has been gone into, and that will practically be thrown away unless the Court can continue to act notwithstanding the vacancy. In a case of that sort the importation of another member will be the worst possible proceeding.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. BULL: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
Being a solicitor I might be suspect in suggesting that this Sub-section should be omitted, but I am not likely to be interested as a solicitor in any of these inquiries. Therefore I suggest that this Sub-section might be reconsidered. My right hon. Friend (Sir R. Horne) is eliminating the greater part of the Clause, and therefore I suggest that the Committee might very reasonably consider the question of the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitors. The
right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) conducted with great ability during the War an inquiry in Westminster Hall, and he said he was very much impeded by the fact that neither solicitor nor counsel were allowed to take part in these inquiries. He found that cases were not properly presented, and that in a large number of cases the Committee were detained by having to inquire from the witnesses who came before them whether they had presented their case properly, either as plaintiff or defendant, and he very greatly regretted the fact that there was no professional advice in connection with the inquiry. Therefore I suggest, on behalf of the Bar and the Law Society, whether it is advisable that "the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor" should not be deleted. In view of the deletions which my right hon. Friend suggests it is a question whether the Subsection should not come out. At any rate I plead that this matter should be very carefully considered.

Sir R. HORNE: As may be readily imagined, I have no sympathy with those who seek to lessen the work which comes either to solicitors or to counsel, and perhaps both to my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull) and to myself the old phrase may be applied that dog does not eat dog. In connection with this matter of appearance before the Court of Industrial Inquiry I am certain there are many occasions when the appearance of solicitor and counsel only serves to aggravate proceedings rather than facilitate them. I have known of some cases within the present year of which that might be said with the greatest possible truth, and accordingly I should hope that the appearance of counsel would be limited to the very narrowest possible dimensions. With that in view we took the power to regulate the cases in which solicitors and counsel might appear. It is also true that there are occasions when the conduct of proceedings is expedited by people who are skilled in the production of evidence. We cannot do better between these two contending views than to allow the Minister a discretion as to what can be done in any particular case that comes before the Court of Inquiry, and I hope the Committee will be willing to leave that discretion in the hands of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. H. SMITH: I venture, with great respect, to differ from the right hon.
Gentleman. I do not think that he has answered the case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull). This is not a question of aggravating the proceedings, and I am very much surprised that my right hon. Friend, who was at one time a distinguished member of a distinguished profession should suggest that the presence of counsel or solicitor would aggravate the proceedings. I treat this matter very seriously, and I would cite the historic example of the Military Service Tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House then, but he will remember that for a year or two the Military Service Tribunals had the advantage of having cases presented to them by counsel and solicitor, and when the Minister of National Service brought forward a Military Service Bill, in which he proposed to deprive these tribunals of the service of counsel and solicitors he was threatened with mutiny by the Military Service Tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes), who is now in his place, will not contradict me on that point. He knows that the Military Service Tribunals, particularly in London, and I believe it spread to the provinces, threatened that if he proceeded with that proposal it would be quite impossible for them to conduct their work. Why does the Minister of Labour suggest that the presence of counsel or solicitor at these tribunals would aggravate the proceedings? If the Minister of National Service had proceeded with his proposal to exclude counsel and solicitor he would have been in very great danger of wrecking the whole of that remarkable machine which he and the Government had built up.
10.0 P.M.
I do not understand the relation between Sub-section (4), which we are now discussing, and Clause 9. Sub-section (4) of Clause 4 says:
The Minister may make rules regulating…the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor.
That is as to the Courts of Inquiry. Clause 9 provides for the making of rules, and says:
Provision shall be made by rules under this Act with respect to the cases in which persona may appear by counsel or solicitor…before the Industrial Court, before an arbitrator or before a Court of Inquiry.
In one case the Minister may make rules and in the other case they shall make rules as to the representation of people by counsel or solicitor. Having regard to the
very extraordinary example which we had in the Military Service Tribunals, and having regard to the wording of Subsection (4), Clause 4, and of Clause 9, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not done himself justice. Is it not well established that, as was the case in the military service tribunals, the tribunal wants to get at the facts and wants to do justice? Everybody knows that the Military Service Tribunals worked with wonderful results, and with a determination to get at the true facts in the shortest possible time. They were working at high pressure, and it was perfectly wonderful the way in which they dealt so justly with so many cases. In regard to the tribunals now about to be set up, we can say as prophets that the desire will be to arrive at the true facts of each case. How can my right hon. Friend suggest that you are increasing the work of these tribunals if the parties who are making their appeals are represented by the legal profession? That is contrary to every lesson which has been learned. If you get a just tribunal, honestly trying to get at the facts in the shortest space of time, and if the party is not represented, the just tribunal may spend in some cases minutes and in some cases hours trying to extract facts from a person who is not skilled in laying the facts of his case. If, on the other hand, that person is represented by an advocate, the Court has the right to assume that all that has to be said for the party is said, and the time of the Court is saved enormously by having all the knowledge of the facts presented by a skilled legal person. Like my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull), I am little likely to gain anything by this Amendment. It is very easy to say that an Amendment of this sort benefits one if one happens to be a member of the legal profession, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will not suggest that we are actuated by any selfish motive. It is our desire to ensure not only justice, but quick justice, in proposing that these tribunals should have every assistance that can possibly be given to them.

Mr. HODGE: I am not going to speak only as far as trade unions are concerned. I think I can speak with some knowledge of the opinion of employers, and they do not want either solicitors or counsel introduced into trade disputes with reference either to wages or conditions of employment. If we had a wages dispute in the
iron and steel trade, it would be more trouble for me to get my hon. and learned Friend to conduct the case than to conduct it myself, because he would have to be taught. There are a great many technical and practical questions which have to be placed before those who are judging, and those who have any practical knowledge of industry know that it is the practical man who can make out the best case. For that reason alone I hope my right hon. Friend will stand fast and not accept this Amendment. I would not object to solicitor or counsel coming in if both parties agreed. I think that that is quite a sufficient safeguard, because they would never get in.

Sir N. MOORE: I do not want to range myself alongside the lawyers, but if the desire of the Minister is to do away with professional advocates this Clause is not going to achieve that end. Where arbitration is at work at the present time there are professional advocates both on behalf of Labour and employers, and these become equally proficient as anyone else, and the same advocates appear for the various sections of the community. I am sure that many will agree that hon. Members who have raised this point have not been actuated by any unworthy motive, but have simply done so in the interests of the public good.

Sir R. HORNE: I agree that there is a certain overlapping between Sub-section (4) of Clause 4 and Clause 9. Undoubtedly this matter of the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor is dealt with in both these Clauses, and it is necessary to delete one of them. With the consent of the Committee, I propose to delete, in Sub-section (4), the words "the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitor." In Section 9 the matter will come up again. Of course, I absolve at once my hon. and learned Friends from any suggestion of being interested by any private motive in making this suggestion, and I am sure that they hold the view, which I also hold, that the employment of counsel and solicitor does in a great majority of cases lead to the expedition of the work. But I am equally certain that when you are dealing with industrial matters you do not get expedition. In dealing with these matters you deal very often with questions of negotiation and conciliation, and the appearance of counsel or solicitor in these cases is often an impediment rather than an assistance. I am talking from ex-
perience which, with till his learning, I am perfectly certain my hon. Friend has not had in reference to industrial disputes and, guided by that experience, I venture to present to the Committee the view which is embodied in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "production of documents."

Mr. CLYNES: This is one of a couple of Amendments which are very closely related and may also be said to hang on the Amendment lower down in the name of my right hon. Friend. I would like to take the opportunity of pressing what is the Labour and trade union view on the subject Personally, I regret that my right hon. Friend should delete these words. The trade union is sin association of persons. Employers when they act as an association and form one body should be treated exactly like trade unions. The law should apply equally to both kinds of associations. That is what we propose. The Amendment says that rules shall be made with regard to confidential documents, and the confidential transactions of a trade union or an association of employers, and we should like those words later on to be accepted. I think that you will find it difficult to accept them from the Chair if those words now being considered are carried. Equality of treatment in the case of these two associations will suggest itself as acceptable to the whole of the Committee, but the general question of Part II. of the Bill is one of inquiry. Every step is to be taken to inquire, even when a dispute which is apprehended, not to say has actually taken place.
Usually in these disputes the facts are in dispute, and I suggest that you cannot get at the facts unless you get at the very material private documents relating to the financial and business, sides of these firms whose argument is that they cannot possibly afford to meet the terms of the men. If inquiry is to have any purpose at all it should be that of getting at the truth, and the facts usually lie at the bottom of a basket in connection, with these questions of wages and conditions of work. Workmen rarely believe what employers of labour say with regard to profits and their inability to improve the standard of wages of the employés. Workmen see businesses expanding with every evidence of development of prosperity. They see records of great sums carried to reserve, and in a
considerable number of ways there is some proof of what might be termed, without offence, devices for dealing with sums of money which are part of profits so as to conceal the prosperity of the firm, with a view to not having to concede better conditions to the workers.
Those of us who have for so many years had to do with so many hundreds of trade union meetings, and have had to deal with great masses of men know how difficult it is to persuade a body of men of any of the embarrassments which employers of labour so frequently allege. Therefore, if you are to have effective inquiry, and to make a good use of the investigation you must be able to get at the documents which alone usually contain the exact facts regarding the situation which has to be-inquired into. Recently we had the railway dispute, and I will take, it to illustrate my meaning. On the one side, the Government alleged that the railways were being run at a loss which had to be met by a subsidy, and therefore they could not bear any farther burden which an increase of wages would occasion. On the other hand, the men said that if all the work of the railway companies in recent years in the carriage of men and materials in connection with the War had been paid for at the rate at which it would have had to be paid for if the same number of passengers and the same weight of material had been carried for the ordinary community the Government would have had quite a considerable profit, and that therefore the workmen, the wage earners, ought not to suffer because of that situation.
The Government, I suppose, if this question had been inquired into by the operation of such a Bill as this, would have had to produce documents, facts, particulars, and figures, or else the inquiry into the matter would have been a futile proceeding. So it would be in most inquiries, unless you could have documents furnished to reveal the truth to those who, as the Court, had the responsibility of making some real and important investigation. So I say that if my right hon. Friend deletes these other words, and the succeeding words, even words relating to the authentication of disputes and words relating to papers and books, and documents which are part of the subject-matter of the inquiry, he is so paring down the opportunities for real inquiry as to make it almost a futile proceeding to begin any investigation. For what purpose are
you to call witnesses? Who would think of going into a Court of law on any other matter with the right to withhold the documents which contain the facts, and which alone are really the repositories of the truth? I suggest it would be fail-so to phrase the terms of this part of the Bill as to protect associations of employers as associations, to protect working men as associations acting through trade unions, with regard to the facts and figures, and data as to profits of firms or businesses, their position and wealth, and in regard to all these things provide the fullest possible opportunity for getting at the truth which the inquiry is instituted to reveal.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The right hon. Gentleman, as always, has made his point abundantly clear, but after listening to his clear and precise examination of the position, I feel satisfied that there is really no dispute between either side. He is anxious that this tribunal should have full materials—I use a neutral word—on which to judge what is the true position of either the employer or the employed. In an Amendment which comes later on the Paper it is sought to insert the words:
Provided that no Order or requirement shall be made under this Sub-section with regard to confidential documents or confidential transactions of a trade union or association of employers.
Will he allow me to remind him that the words "production of documents" is really a term of art? There is a precise ancillary to our procedure in the Courts of justice, whereby we provide that parties to a suit shall make what is known as a production of documents. They have to make an affidavit of documents; they have to send up all the documents relevant to the dispute, and the production of documents is a well known principle of the law used every day, and around it a great many rules have been made. My right hon. Friend says, "Well, I do not want to go to a point to which objection might be taken on the other side. I do not want to go so far as to say that an Order shall be made as to confidential documents or transactions; that would be going too far." But he says, and with abundant reason, "I do want to have production of such documents as may be necessary for the purpose of illustrating the facts." Take one illustration. He would desire to have, for instance, the published balance-sheets for several years, in order to show what had been the profits made
by any particular firm or the amount put to reserve. Those would not be confidential documents, but they would illustrate the facts. He demands all that, quite rightly, but he says that we must make an alteration in this so that we do not go too far and ask for confidential documents. If we leave the words in the Bill "production of documents," primâ facie, that would carry with it the system that applies in the Law Courts, namely, the production of all documents, whether confidential or otherwise, which would be relevant to the issue. The proviso cuts down that production of documents. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is to leave in the words "production of documents," because we want a certain number of documents and prevent that production going too far. It is necessary to make rules of procedure for the Court as to the summoning of witnesses and the like. It is far better to leave out the words "production of documents" than to introduce a system which is well known and recognised, and then by a proviso cut it down to a point which would make it useless. So far as documents may be necessary for the purpose of informing the tribunal of the facts of the case, all those documents can still be produced, and no doubt would be produced, but the specific method of insisting on what is legally known as the production of documents would become unnecessary if that was to be safeguarded in the manner suggested. In the case of the Interim Courts of Arbitration there were no compulsory powers as to production, and they have been able to get at the facts and quite satisfactorily and safely. With these observations I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate it is not because there is really any difference, but because we do not desire to put in the Bill terms which would afterwards be contradicted by the proviso that we take out reference to the system of production of documents.

Mr. HODGE: I think the Solicitor-General has missed the point of my right hon. Friend's observations. In dealing with an employer who is a unit and has got to prove his case, we do not want the production of minute-books and other private documents of the association of employers, and which have got nothing to do with the dispute, and in the same way we want to protect the trade union from the production of similar documents. It would be a wrong thing for us to ask disclosure of documents relative to the em-
plovers' association as such, and equally evil to ask trade unions to produce similar documents.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but what he has said does not really alter my opinion. It still seems to me to be quite unwise to introduce this system of the production of documents and then to introduce the proviso. I am quite certain the Courts will be able to ask for, and will receive, all the material documents which are relevant to enable it to get at the facts, without putting in a system which would be imperfectly worked and which is quite unnecessary to achieve the object in view.

Mr. HODGE: We are not the sinners, as would be assumed from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Sir E. POLLOCK: No.

Mr. HODGE: We'll, I think so. The words are in the Bill as printed, and it is the Government who are seeking to take them out, so that I think a good deal of the argument against us is based upon wrong grounds entirely. But it is no use trying to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Major BARNES: One cannot help wondering whether the deletion of these words is really done for the purpose of getting rid of the awkward proviso which would otherwise follow. I take it the great effect of dropping these words is that there would be no necessity for the proviso. I wanted to oppose the deletion of these words because I intended later to oppose the insertion, of the proviso. In the earlier stages of this Debate one or two hon. Members said that the chief reason for having this Court of Inquiry was not so much in the interests of the parties immediately concerned as of the general public. That being so, it seems to me that the value of these Courts of Inquiry to the general public is going to be very much diminished indeed by the dropping of these words or by the insertion of the proviso. It might very well be of the greatest possible interest and importance to the general public that every document should be produced, not only the documents of private employers, but of employers' federations and also trade unions, and one cannot help feeling just a little suspicious about the concern of my hon. Friends of the Labour party
to protect the records of employers' federations. Recent inquiries have brought to light that there are many combinations or associations of employers which have a very real bearing upon trade and labour disputes, and it might be of the utmost importance in an inquiry that those conducting it should know something of what had been done in employers' associations and federations. There is another matter which conies very much to the fore in Labour disputes, and that is the charge that we hear all round about us to-day that a great many of these disputes arise from the action of the trade unions, that there are limitations-and regulations put upon output and production by the trade unions which form in many cases the basis of the disputes, and it would seem to me that in an inquiry it might be vital that there should be disclosed, if it exists, information of that kind, and that for this purpose the Court should have the fullest power of getting documents, not only from private employers but from employers' federations and equally from trade union associations. I regret, therefore, that the learned Solicitor-General intends to drop this Clause.

Mr. LANE-MITCHELL: Assuming that what the Solicitor-General has said is right, what power will the Court of Inquiry have to call for documents? It is not like an Arbitration Committee, which has optional power. It is compulsory for them to produce documents in this case, and you seem to fritter that away.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Colld we have some explanation of this? I gather it is not intended to give the Courts power to demand the production, of books and accounts.

Sir E. POLLOCK: If we leave out these words it does not at all mean that the Courts will not have the opportunity of calling for and obtaining the production of documents which are necessary. They would have in the ordinary course the ordinary power. For instance, if it is said before the Court that some agreement has been made, then in the ordinary course that would be produced. But the "production of documents" is something different. "Production of documents" as now known to the law is this: Before an action gets anywhere near the Law Courts, each party has to make an affidavit of all the documents, and after that
they have to produce those documents, and then there is an opportunity of inspection. Under a compulsory system documents are first of all scheduled in an affidavit and can be inspected and required to be produced. That is what is called the system of "production of documents." But a great number of documents are ordinarily produced in the ordinary way without any compulsion at all, and with good will on both sides, because it is part of the necessary equipment of either side for the purpose of substantiating their case, and I think the slight confusion before the Committee arises from this. They seem to think that, unless you put in the words "production of documents," no documents will be produced. That is quite wrong. By putting in "production of documents," "authentication of documents" and so on, the draftsman must have supposed that, in addition to the question of compulsory summoning of witnesses, it was intended to give the Courts this full power of production of documents, and, as I pointed out, that appeared to go too far, and to impose too much compulsion. Therefore, it was determined to delete it, but when it is deleted that will not prevent the Court making use of documents which will be produced, and I have no doubt will be produced generously on both sides. Under Subsection (5) a Court of Inquiry may by order require the parties to furnish any books, papers, and other documents as the Court may require, which really means that if those documents were found necessary they would be produced. The confusion of the Committee arises from this: They assume that without the words "production of documents" no documents will be produced. That is not so. Documents will be available for the purposes of the Courts, but what it is intended to do is to avoid giving any colour that we are introducing into these Courts a system, which is a very highly finished system, of the Law Courts as to the production of documents.

Mr. THOMAS: The Solicitor-General has attempted to demonstrate one fact, namely, that, although he now proposes the deletion of certain words from the Bill referring to certain documents, that that does not mean that the Court will not have the same power, and the same authority.

Sir E. POLLOCK: dissented.

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly: but that is not so. We are, therefore, justified in pressing for the Government to carry out the original intention. Let us take an illustration of the present coal situation. Supposing the Miners' Federation and the coal-owners were to agree at the present moment to refer that important matter in dispute to this particular Court. It is alleged oil both sides that the Government's position is a wrong position. In the first place, the statement is made that there is no bargain in regard to limitation of profits. That is to say, the coal-owners distinctly say the statement that they are limited to 1s. 2d. is not true. This may be right or wrong, but that is their case. Then the Government, on the other hand, say that they are limited.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): That has never been settled. They will be limited. A Bill is to be introduced at an early date.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned at the limiting, and as to whether or not it has been considered—whether that is or is not a fact. I am merely stating what is the public position at this moment. The public are under the impression, rightly or wrongly—

Sir A. GEDDES: Again, I know my right hon. Friend is not wishful to misrepresent the facts on what I said a moment ago. I merely said that the Government did not say so. I quite admit that the people are saying so.

Mr. THOMAS: Then there is a matter in dispute in regard to the coal-owners' profits? There is equally a matter in dispute as to the justification of the price the consumer is paying. Either side may be right or wrong. I am not arguing that. That can only be proved by documents, by evidence being produced. The Solicitor-General says we have had experience during the past four years, and on no occasion has it been necessary for the production of documents of this kind. That may be perfectly true, but you are here setting up by Act of Parliament an entirely different Court, and if confidence is to be established, not only between both sides, but on the part of the public as well, the latter must feel that everything in connection with the matter in dispute has not only been investigated, but that every
opportunity for investigation has taken place. The difficulty the Committee is in at this moment is: Why did the Government themselves introduce these words? The Amendment has not come from us, but from the Government. Clearly the Government must have thought and believed when they introduced the Bill that those words were necessary. Hon. Members below the Gangway raised the point of the objection of trade unions to the Amendment. I say quite frankly that if all documents are to be produced that it should apply equally to both sides. There can be no exception to the rule. Every document in connection with our organisation is public property. They are published and printed, and I have no objection, as far as my union is concerned, to the restriction applying to us as it applies to the other side. I believe it will tend to general satisfaction if documents of all kinds are produced, and I see no reason for the omission of these words.

Mr. H. SMITH: I rise to make a suggestion to the Solicitor-General. I differ from the view which he takes in this discussion. He says that the Committee seem to think if these words are deleted no documents will be produced, but I do not think that that is the opinion of the Committee. Our fear is that if these words are deleted some valuable documents may be kept back. Unless you give the Court power to call for documents which are known to exist and which a party may be unwilling to produce, there is a genuine fear if you delete these words there will be no power under which the Court can call for some essential or valuable document. That is the fear of the Committee and which I hold myself. If there ever were issues in respect of which the whole of the facts ought to be laid before the Court they are to be found in the questions raised under this Bill. Let us get these documents so as to be able to get the true facts, and how can you ensure this unless you give to the Court power to demand documents which they know exist? Under this Bill as suggested they have no such power.
The Solicitor-General has based his objection largely on certain legal objections. He says that the words "production of documents" have a highly technical meaning. He and I know that you can read through some ten or twenty pages to show what is the meaning of "production of documents." If you use these words they must bear a technical meaning. I would
remind the Solicitor-General that in the rules of the Supreme Court provision is made for the production of specific documents, and that is a different thing to the general production of documents, which is very complicated. There are rules in our Supreme Court which give power to call for specific documents, and why not insert tine word "specific" before "document"? That would mean that the parties would submit a request that certain documents should be produced, just as we go before the Master in Chambers and give reasons why a specific document should be produced—it may be an agreement, a letter, or something else. If they can show cause why for the settlement of a dispute some specific document should be produced, why not give them power to order it as opposed to the general production of documents? My suggestion will ensure that the Court has power to order any specific document, and I think that will avoid the difficulty raised by my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am much obliged for my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, but as a matter of fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said,
He who complies against his will,
Is of his own opinion still.
My difficulty is that so long as we have these words "productions of documents" in, I feel sure that we are introducing a system which applies in the Courts amongst commercial people. Nothing is more objectionable, nothing is held to be more burdensome, and nothing consumes so much time as this system of the production of documents. Indeed, in the Commercial Court we have adopted a system under which we ask for specific documents in order to get round this very heavy burden which is imposed most unwillingly upon the commercial community and which they find involves them in great cost and to be very arduous. That is my difficulty, and, knowing a great deal more about that than hon. Members—because in my work at the Bar I have had a great deal to do with the production of documents—I am very reluctant to leave in those words. So far as I can learn—and I had nothing to do with the drafting—I find that the words "production of documents," "authentication of documents," and so on, have been introduced really as a form which had been used upon some previous occasion, and
without carefully considering and weighing as they were each put forward. Are we to stand by that burdensome system? I feel sure that I have the whole sense of the Committee with me when I say that was not intended and that was not the purpose for which the production of documents is asked. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. H. Smith) suggests that we should use another term well known to the Law Courts and that we should put in "specific documents" or "documents specified." That would introduce another set or code of rules and would go beyond what, I. think, is necessary, because, if hon. Members will look at Sub-section (5), they will see the words
to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars in relation thereto as the Court may require, and, where necessary, to attend before the Court and give evidence on oath.
If that be carried out to the full, whenever documents are required in the course of an inquiry as incidental to the evidence given or as containing the materials upon which the evidence is based, the documents will be produced. I do not want, however, to introduce a system under which before the case goes to trial you may have "specific documents" or "documents specified" or all documents produced, because I know how burdensome that system is. If you leave these words out, you do not exclude a tribunal from seeing the documents, but you do take away from the tribunal a power which is burdensome and which in my opinion is unnecessary. I am quite ready to consider the position, but I cannot think that anything else is necessary. If, however, we leave out anything that is necessary, it will be possible to deal with it upon Report, but I really do urge the Committee to accept the proposition made to leave out these words because the system which would be introduced is so burdensome. It is upon that ground and no other ground that I urge the Commissioners to accept the view that I present to them. I am sorry to have intervened in the Debate so often. But the matter was one that required explanation, and I wanted to make it as clear as I could.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have listened with great attention to the honeyed phrases of the Solicitor-General, and I am more convinced than ever that these words are necessary in the Bill. Neither party to the dispute need go to
the Court, but if they do go there then everything relating to the dispute ought to be laid on the Table. The learned Solicitor-General has spoken of the difficulties attendant on orders for the discovery of documents in Courts of Law. But this is not to be a Court of Law. I hope it will be a Court of Justice. On a previous Amendment the Minister of Labour joined with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton in saying they did not want lawyers to interfere in these disputes or have anything to do with them, and the Amendment which evoked that argument was negatived. It is to be open to the Minister of Labour to make rules for the production of documents, but what is really aimed at is the production of balance sheets. That is what we want to be made compulsory, and I hope my hon. Friends will insist on that. If the public read this Debate and understand that the Government after backing the Bill with these words we have now cut them out they will at once come to the conclusion it has been done in consequence of pressure. I see the Solicitor-General shakes his head, but that will be the opinion of the public. The "Daily Mail" will say it to-morrow. They are looking for weak points in the Government policy, and, inasmuch as the Opposition in the House is weak, we have to rely on the Press to help us. I believe similar words to these appear in the Profiteering Act; why not leave them in this? Half the problems in Labour disputes are based on a suspicion as to the enormous profits, made by certain firms which justify the demand for increased wages, and therefore I submit that the Government are not acting in the best interests of the nation in seeking to leave these words out.

Mr. CLYNES: We cannot allow this Amendment to be disposed of without expressing our keen disappointment with the explanations given as to what is meant by the Clause. If this Amendment stood alone, there would be something to be said for the explanations of the Solicitor-General, but it is one of several Amendments grouped together on the Order Paper. Those Amendments, if carried collectively, so pare down the terms of the Clause that all words relating not merely to documents but also to books and papers and the authentication of documents will be deleted. The only phrase used by the Solicitor-General was "production of documents." The proposed Amendments
go further and will leave the Clause shorn of all reference to papers, books and the authentication of documents. Whereas the original wording of the Clause required persons to bring forward under the rules the books, documents and papers and the authentication of documents, with the Amendments the. Clause will merely empower the Court, when it thinks fit, to call upon persons to furnish in writing certain particulars. That is a substantial difference.

Mr. H. SMITH: That however under Sub-section (5) is only given to such an extent as may be authorised by the rules which we are now discussing in Subsection (4), so it is very much more whittled down than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) appears to have understood.

Mr. CLYNES: That supports the argument I was endeavouring to make. As the House has suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to make a good job of this Bill and as this inquiry is being forced upon us, we think that the Courts should have documentary powers adequate enough to lift these firms and businesses above the suspicion in which they rest in the minds of the working men. The working men suspect that the facts are not revealed in these inquiries that take place from time to time. The position is that if the right hon. Gentleman presses this Amendment he will be obliged to press the others [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. I imagine they were put on the Paper for some definite purpose. If he presses them we shall have to offer the strongest resistance we can to the thinning down of the Clause. It is an extraordinary thing that in so few lines as are contained in these two Sub-sections there should be so many Government Amendments. It is not a case of this proposal being subjected to great haste. Bits of phrases in other Bills have been collected together in this extraordinary document and only when we come to examine them do we find what is really meant. There is a number of Government Amendments, which, if carried, will take the substance out of the inquiry of the Court. I therefore trust the right hon. Gentleman can see his way not to press the Amendments on the Committee.

11.0 P.M.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very reluctant to appear to neglect any suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman. We are
very anxious indeed to make the Courts as powerful as may be for the purpose of dealing with the cases which may be brought before them, and anything which would shake the confidence of the public in the Courts would be disastrous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has handed me the Profiteering Act, but I find the words there are not, "the production of documents." It does not include what I have indicated as the legal system of the production of documents. It is a very different phrase. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me if in matters of law I prefer to rely on my own opinion. When I put out to sea with him I will give him full command, but when he comes into the Law Courts he would think very poorly of me if I did not know quite as much about the production of documents as he does, and though I gather that he has been a successful litigant on some occasions, I do not quite know whether that gives him the same kind of experience as something like thirty-five years in the Law Courts has given me. He suggests that I shall find something from the Profiteering Act. I find the words there are "and produce such documents as they may require "— that is as the Court may require. It occurs to me that we might insert the words "and requiring the production of such documents as they may require." I think that would meet the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I think they would have that actual power, but in order that there may be no mistake about it I should be quite ready to put those words in on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "authentication of documents."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Solicitor-General also to amend these words, on Report so as to include the authentication of such documents as are required, and so make the ship quite watertight.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I will not rule that out. I do not wish to take up any hard and fast attitude. The meaning of authentication of documents is that copies should be accepted instead of originals. I think both sides would probably prefer the original documents. During the War we
have sometimes used copies in the Courts, but I think both sides would prefer the originals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), leave out the words "the appearance of persons interested by counsel or solicitors."

In Sub-sction (5), leave out the words "the production of any books, papers, and other documents relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry, and require."

Leave out the word "that" ["knowledge of that"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."

After the word "subject-matter," insert the words "of the inquiry."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, after the word "purpose" ["for that purpose "], to insert the words
Provided that no Order or requirement shall be made under this Sub-section with regard to confidential documents or confidential transactions of a trade union or association of employers.
As far as the Association of Employers is concerned, it would be wrong to argue that they should disclose anything of a confidential nature which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the dispute. The same argument would apply with respect to a trade union. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks this proviso is not necessary I will not press it. I move it so that he may have an opportunity of saying what would be the effect of the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment, in order that I may explain my view. I do not think the proviso is necessary, and it would be unfortunate if it was introduced. The suggestion I have made, and which the Committee was good enough to accept, is that it will be in the power of the Court to require the production of documents. I put that in the hands of the Court. The Court may make an Order, and if it makes an Order for any particular document either side may argue that that was not really germane to the inquiry, that it was a private document of a confidential nature and that the Order ought not to be made except in a modified form or in an exclusive form. There the discretion of the
Court will be brought into play. If you put in the proviso you put in words which are by no means easy to interpret, namely, "confidential" and "confidential transaction," and I think it would rather fetter the discretion of the Court. In some cases they might wish to have a document produced that might be very relevant to the issue, but about which, on the other hand, a claim might be made that it was a confidential document. If the Court was so minded that documents should be produced, it would be unfortunate if they were not to be produced. If, on the other hand, you were to put in this proviso, it would defeat the object in view that all proper documents may properly be required by order of the Court, and it is better to leave the matter to the discretion and sense of justice of the tribunal rather than ourselves to introduce some words the meaning of which it would not be easy to decide.

Mr. HODGE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words
If any person fails to comply with any Order of the Court under this Sub-section, or furnishes any particulars which are false or misleading or gives any evidence which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.
If we are asked to have confidence in those who ask for evidence, we should also have confidence that those who are asked to provide evidence will provide that evidence. There should be no compulsion attached. This is the worst form of compulsion—fining £50 or awarding imprisonment for a month. I assume that the £50 applies to the employers, and the month in gaol to the workers. We wish to keep the measure purely voluntary for every class.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am not quite certain that the hon. Member appreciates what would be the effect if this Amendment were accepted. He was good enough to make a passing jest as to the punishment to be meted out to one side or the other, but metaphorical observations of that sort do not help us to understand the Bill. We have got to this point, that both sides have gone to a Court, and have determined to make use of the powers of that Court. It is a tribunal in which both
sides have confidence, and they have determined that in older to ascertain the exact position it is right to go to this Court. There has been common consent that the Court should have power to summon witnesses, and, if it thinks right, require the production of documents, and are we then, by taking out the words indicated in this Amendment, to say that such a Court, in winch both sides have confidence, which both sides are anxious should arrive at the truth and should have facilities for arriving at the truth should not hare power to deal with persons who gave false evidence? I should have thought that the very fact that we had set up this tribunal and had invited it to act was a reason for saying we ought to safeguard it against being misled by false evidence which is false to the knowledge of the person who places it before the Court. I invite the Committee, under these circumstances, to hesitate before they vary these words, because what is worth setting up—the Court of Inquiry—is also worth protecting on both sides.

Captain W. BENN.: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is a Court which has been set up with the consent of both sides, and he says that if people appear before it, it is only reasonable to penalise them if they make false statements. That is a perfect case. But I have read this Clause. It says that the Court may be set up "whether or not the dispute is reported to him." So far as I can understand it, he may set up the Court and he may say to one of the parties "you must appear," and if the party says he will not appear he can be penalised. Is that a correct statement of the case?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I was just going to make the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. I think the learned Solicitor-General is confusing the Industrial Court with the Court of Inquiry. In the case of the Industrial Court it is provided that both parties shall assent, but in the case of the Court of Inquiry the Minister can set it up at his own discretion. He then summons persons to the Court. They have no option. There you have the element of compulsion brought into the measure—an element that is disastrous to the spirit of conciliation. Not for giving false evidence but merely for failing to appear they are liable to fine or imprisonment. After hearing the
discussion I am more and more convinced that this compulsory Court of Inquiry is hostile to the whole spirit of conciliation which should animate the procedure under the Bill.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think the hon. Member has properly called my attention to the fact that I have probably gone too far, and I am much obliged to him for his statement. On the other hand, if he will allow me to say so, I do not think he has gone far enough. He says that it is the Minister who is to hale persons before the Court of Inquiry.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I said he sets up the Court.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Although I may have gone too far—and I apologise to the Committee at once—at the same time I do not go back on the sense of what I said, because the position is this: Here is a Court of Inquiry to which the Committee are assenting, and this Court of Inquiry is seized of this subject matter which they are to inquire into. There are also given to the Court certain powers for the purpose of ascertaining the true and accurate facts. Then an Order is made not by any Department, but by the Court under the Sub-section. In what spirit does the Court make the Order? For the purpose of making the inquiry complete. The Court, having made the Order, ought to be protected, and we ought not to allow the Order to be disobeyed or the Court to be misled by false evidence.

Mr. HENDERSON: The Solicitor-General appears to think that the only thing in this Clause is a question of false evidence. There is something more important to the vast body of the workers. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman notice that if they merely fail to carry out an Order of the Court they may be subjected to this fine? I understood the Minister was exceedingly anxious to experiment on this form of legislation of Courts of Inquiry. I said earlier I thought Courts of Inquiry properly constituted and conducted might serve a very useful purpose. I repeat that; but surely to begin this experiment by telling the trade union officials of this country if a Court, the constitution and composition of which we know nothing at the moment because it is left to the Minister to appoint whom he thinks fit, issues an Order that the trade union secretary, who cannot yet have received sanction and authority from his executive, is
to be subject to a fine of £50, is surely a new method of dealing with the trade union movement in this country. I have been associated with the trade union movement for thirty-six years, and I must say I have not seen any attempt to deal with the movement in this way by any Government previous to this Government. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to see the point the Labour party apprehends in this Sub-section, and the reason for which we seek its deletion. It is not so long ago since the Government told us that no body of officials assisted so much as the trade union officials, both the country and the Government of the country during the five years of crisis through which we have passed, and now they are to have served out to them a policy dictated by fear, and in this spirit of fear, if the trade union official does not toe the line, then for the first time he has got to be the victim of a fine of £50 or imprisonment. It would be imprisonment, for, as the Mover of the deletion said, £50 fine was for the employer who could pay, and imprisonment was for the man who could not, and that was the trade union official. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to put on his beet attitude for once, and see whether he cannot accept this Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I responded once, and it is not too late to do so again. I am quite ready to see if I can meet the point. I think on the whole the observations I have made would be carried if we left out the words "fails to comply with any Order of the Court," and then the Clause would read, "If any person furnishes any particulars which are false or gives any evidence which is false in any material particular." I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether that does not exactly meet his point, because it is not a question of disobeying an Order, but only where a man wilfully furnishes false particulars or gives false evidence. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would join in deprecating that as strongly as I do. The purpose I have indicated in the Clause would be served in that way. I would ask the hon. Member to move his Amendment in that way.

Mr. R. YOUNG: In the circumstances, I should wish to withdraw my Amendment.

Major HILLS: Before that is done, and since my hon. and learned Friend has
gone so far, would it not be really best to omit the whole Sub-section? I will tell the Committee why. You do not want protection against perjury or production of false documents for by the preceding Subsection the Court can compel all evidence to be taken on oath, and can compel documents to be verified on oath. That being so, does not this Clause savour of compulsion? Will not this Clause be read as a compulsory Clause? I want the Bill to be free from all suspicion of compulsion. I agree it may not be a very stringent Clause, but still, it will be so read, and the trade union official will think, if he makes a mistake in his evidence or in the documents which he puts forward, he can be sent to prison for a month or fined £50. I submit that you have got all the power you want, and I ask whether you cannot leave the whole Sub-section out?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope the Government will accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. If they do so they will make their own Bill very much more consistent, because if the Solicitor-General looks at Clause 5 he will see that nobody is allowed to disclose any confidential information. There is no sanction and no penalty, and in that case it is merely a pious wish, and if you do not impose any penalty on anybody for disclosing the most confidential and secret information, thereby very likely leading to the ruin of some particular firm, I do not see why you should go out of your way to impose a special penalty in the other Clause. I think we ought either to take out the penalty here or to put a penalty in the other Clause; as a matter of fact, I have handed in a manuscript Amendment putting a penalty in the other Clause to make the Bill read consistently, but I think it would be a better plan to wipe out the penalty in this Clause.

Sir R. HORNE: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion which has just been made. It is perfectly plain, I think, that with the Sub-section cut down as proposed, there is little to be gained by its retention, and accordingly I am prepared to assent to the leaving out of the Sub-section.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: There is nothing now to compel any person who may be required by the Court to attend. He may not turn up at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.— (Reports.)

(1) A Court of Inquiry may, if it thinks fit, make Interim Reports.
(2) Any Report of a Court of Inquiry, and any Minority Report, shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Minister may, whether before or after any such Report has been laid before Parliament, publish or cause to be published from time to time, in such manner as he thinks fit, any information obtained or conclusions arrived at by the Court as the result or in the course of their inquiry:

Provided that there shall not be included in any Report or publication made or authorised by the Court or the Minister any information obtained by the Court in the course of their inquiry as to any individual business (whether carried on by a person, firm, or company) which is not available otherwise than through evidence given at the inquiry, except with the consent of the person, firm, or company in question, nor shall any individual member of the Court or any person concerned in the inquiry, without such consent, disclose any such information.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "whether before or after," and to insert instead thereof the words "after or if Parliament is not in Session before."

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think this Amendment really raises a matter of very serious importance. Of course, while Parliament was sitting a Report would be presented to Parliament with the greatest possible speed, but there might be cases in which it would be essential that the Report should be in the hands of the public before it had time to go through the ordinary process and be laid on the Table. Therefore, while in practically every case while Parliament was sitting the Report would reach Parliament first, I do not think we should rule out those cases in which it might be necessary to have the Report in the hands of the public even before Parliament got it. I hope therefore che hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words
Provided that there shall not be included in any report or publication made or authorised by the Court or the Minister any information obtained by the Court in the course of their inquiry as to any individual business (whether carried on by a person, firm, or company) which is not available otherwise than through evidence given at the inquiry, except with the consent of the person, firm, or company in question, nor
shall any individual member of the Court or any person concerned in the inquiry, without such consent, disclose any such information.
It seems to me that if these words remain as in the Bill they would prevent, or might prevent, the publication of just that information that was material in the case. I cannot quite see why the power is taken to exclude from any Report authorised by the Court any information obtained by the Court in the course of their inquiry as to any individual business. Surely if we are going to have an inquiry at all, it might be of essential importance that we should ascertain something that might be of very great importance from the business point of view, but might be really indispensable to a correct judgment of the situation for which the inquiry had been instituted. I may say that this Clause has created a great amount of suspicion, because, to say the least of it, it is one-sided. If it were important that such a Subsection should have been in the Bill, surely the Government should have gone as far as to make it apply equally to the employers and to the trade unions.

Mr. WARDLE: So it does.

Mr. HENDERSON: So far as we read this, it does not apply to the trade unions.

Sir R. HORNE: We propose to do that.

Mr. HENDERSON: There is no Amendment on the Paper. We must ask that it shall be made to apply equally to both sides.

Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, and, if the right hon. Gentleman reflects for a moment and recalls what he has just succeeded in doing in the earlier Sections of the Bill, I think that he will realise that if we are to got documents at all we shall have to create some confidence in the minds of those going to produce them. Hon. Members opposite have just succeeded in inducing us to withdraw all penalties against people who fail to obey the Orders of the Court and give the particulars required. If you have no objection, and if you are going to ask people to produce confidential documents which are going to have no protection whatsoever from the prying eyes of competitors, you will never get documents at all. Therefore, if you want to make your Act of any use, you will require to tell people whom you wish to produce confidential documents that if they do they are not
going to be made the subject of the scrutiny of all their competitors in business. Accordingly, you will render the previous Sections of this part of the Bill nugatory if you fail to pass the proviso in this Sub-section. I therefore regret to say that I cannot accept the Amendment. I ought to say, what I have already said across the Table, that I propose to make the provision equally applicable to trade unions as to firms and employers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I point out that an Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) that a Court might decide whether it, would sit publicly or privately? That being the case, if business secrets came up, the Court undoubtedly would sit privately. Therefore, the whole weight of my hon. Friend's objection falls to the ground.

Sir R. HORNE: If my hon. and gallant Friend will follow the proviso, he will see that it is the Report that is referred to, and not the evidence as recorded.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Exactly; it will not be the evidence, and it will not give the actual figures upon which the Report is based. For example, if there be a wage dispute and the employers say the business will not stand it, and if the balance-sheets, and so on, are produced and it is found that it can or cannot afford it, the actual figures need not go into the Report, it must be within the competence of the Court to decide, and the Court, having looked into the facts, the demand for increased wages can be decided. There is a great deal in what the proposer of this Amendment has said. We have argued this point on previous Amendments, but there surely must be the intention in the Bill as it leaves this House that the financial standing of firms can be looked into. I see no objection to these words being taken out, because they seem to me to weaken the Bill very much.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "inquiry" ["in the course of their inquiry as to any individual business"], insert the words "as to any trade union or;" after the word "the"
["consent of the person"], insert the words "secretary of the trade union or of the."

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have now disposed of Part I. and Part II., and we are about to enter upon what to those of us on this side and to the members of the Trade Union Conference that sat last week is possibly one of the most important parts of this Bill. In the Schedule we shall have to raise the whole question as to the right of the employer to come in the award that was given a few days ago to seek for any reduction of wages before next September, or for the employés to come and ask for an advance. That opens up a big discussion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we ought not to proceed with this serious part of the Bill at this late hour, and that he will try to give us a little more breathing time. We have had very little time to go into this Bill, and I think we have melt the right hon. Gentleman very fairly throughout this sitting. There has been no obstruction. We are all anxious to get on with the Bill, but I think this is a very fitting Motion to move at this juncture, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. I am fully aware of the urgency of the Bill and the necessity for getting it through all its different stages, but if we could take the remainder of the Committee stage during part of another sitting we could then come fresh to it with a desire to do the best we can for the great conference on Friday which is going to decide their official attitude towards this Bill, and I think one or two of the Amendments carried to-night will go a long way in the direction of commending the Bill to them. If the right hon. Gentleman would meet us on this point and give us the chance to approach the Bill to-morrow, hon. Members on this side of the House will be glad.

Sir R. HORNE: I should have been very glad to respond to that request, but I regret the circumstances are such as to make it quite impossible for the Government to do so. My right hon. Friend has put it down as absolutely necessary that we should get this Bill passed by 21st November. I have been able to arrange for the Third Reading on a day later in
order that the discussion that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates should take place by the trade union representatives before the Third Reading. What time is available to us? To-morrow many hon. Members have arranged—and the day has been shortened here to meet that—to advocate the cause of the League of Nations. There is Wednesday for the Report stage. Thursday is taken up with other business. Accordingly, there is no possible way of ensuring that the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act shall be placed on the Statute Book in time unless we finish the Committee stage of this Bill to-night. I take no blame for the fact that we are hurrying now. I am sorry that I cannot make the response that has been asked for—there is no alternatve.

Captain BENN: You cannot, I understand, get the Third Reading of the Bill before Monday because of the Friday meeting of trade unionists. It is very hard on hon. Members—not myself personally—who live a long way from the House and who have to get home in the early hours of the morning, if we sit on. There is no business put down for Friday. Why not finish the Committee stage, and the Report stage on Friday? The Third Reading could be taken as arranged on Monday. That would meet all the objections of ray right hon. Friend.

Major HILLS: Is it possible by agreement to take the remainder of the Committee stage and the Report stage on Wednesday? The Report stage will not, I think, take long.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend has every desire to meet the wishes of the House. The suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend is quite impracticable, because we have put off the Third Reading until Monday to oblige the members of the Labour party, who are so interested in the Bill. We would, however, have really no objection to taking the remainder of the Committee stage and the Report stage on Wednesday, if that is agreeable to hon. Members, and the Third Reading on Monday. The practice has been for the Committee stage and the Report stage to be taken on separate days. I think it is a very undesirable practice. I believe it would be more convenient for the House to go straight on and finish. I am quite willing, on behalf of the Government, to agree to the Motion if we have
an honourable understanding that there will be no objection raised to taking the Committee stage and the Report stage on the same day.

Mr. HOGGE: Could the right hon. Gentleman agree to one further suggestion, namely, that the Bill, as far as it has gone, should be reprinted with the Amendments that have been made? Then, as far as we are concerned, in conjunction with our Labour friends, we would agree to his suggestion.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Is that the opinion of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Very well, then we are ready to accept it.

The CHAIRMAN: I will give instructions for the Bill to be reprinted, with Amendments, as far as it has gone.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again. To-morrow (Tuesday).

Bill, as far as amended, to be printed, [Bill 204.]

Orders of the Day — LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY.]

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to make good losses incurred in respect of loans by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, so far as such losses relate to expenditure under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings, reclamation, and drainage, and other purposes relating to agriculture in Scotland, to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the enactments relating to allotments, and otherwise to facilitate land settlement in Scotland; and to authorise the issue to the Public Works Loan Commissioners out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding two million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds for the purposes of such Act.

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve o'clock.